PID - Paul McCartney's death & replacement in 1966

Real death and a misleading tag, or joke death and joke tag?

Image from here. (For some reason source page is "Forbidden access". It is supposedly about debt collectors issuing death threats. Image found on Google image search, using term "disgusting death", but link listed here is for real site, not Google search page.)


 Note: all images will have descriptions, for foreign-language speakers to be able to use their machine translator tools. For some English speakers, some of the captions may be largely redundant. Some captions add to the sense of the main text, however.

There will also be some ugly images, which are required for inclusion in the article, based on hypotheses from evidence we will discuss along the way. If you cannot handle the images, this author understands, but they are required. One image is a man with his head split open on the sidewalk, though his face is not showing. Others are of damaged eyes, dead fish, and so on. These are not included unnecessarily: just as in a medical case in court, they are necessary to make certain points. They are still chosen with the reader's sensitivities in mind enough to be relatively tasteful, given the subject matter.

If you are visiting this page for information on Jimi Hendrix' doctor's statements about his death, or for the new information summary about Brian Jones' death after his participation in the Rolling Stones band, please use "Find" on your Internet browser to search for the relevant sections.

This article is being rewritten. Some parts repeat. Please be patient and enjoy, so to speak.


It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

Given the difficulties in even approaching the material for a range of readers, not one at a time, which can be hard enough, with even one person's assumptions and fears of certain lines of reasoning, the author of this article made a hard choice.

She decided that in order to marshall the evidence on both sides of the issue at hand -- evidence meaning the materials amassed as if they mean something, which are called evidence in any court case long before a decision is made as to whether these facts are truly likely to be evidence in the final decision -- she would have to dovetail, back and forth, for different readers, providing them kind reminders of how arguments are made, tested, remade, expanded, corrected several times before a full picture of a side of a case is even fully worked out.

The issue at hand is the rumour that Paul McCartney of the Beatles died in late 1966 and was replaced with a talented new bandmate, who tried to look and act as close as possible to Paul without giving up all of his own nature. This rumour, even if untrue, can be proved to have included the Beatles for sure, in print, in their own fan magazine, Beatles Book, in February 1967, long before the rumour supposedly started in 1969 in the USA, and aside from possibly wrong or right thematic artwork which people in 1969 supposed might relate to the rumour and called "clues".

In addition, with or without Beatle input, the rumour itself can now can be reasonably proved to have started in late 1966 in London, even before the first Beatle reference to it in Beatles Book. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Horse toy with stop sign saying "Whoa!" -- Based on the expression to tell a horse to stop: "Whoa, Horsie". Image from here.

As to the fact that one would expect something to have leaked out in actual statements from the Beatles themselves, we find they were not silent. Sometimes they denied the matter, sometimes affirmed it. It is our interpretation of their statements on both sides, which changes the matter one way or another for us. Are the denials the lie and the affirmations the truth, or the opposite, as most people assume.

What happens when people try on the idea of Paul's having died and the current Sir Paul McCartney's being a 5th famous "Fab Four" Beatle is that they find that people did make statements about the idea which support the idea. Even if we are correct to do so, we have simply taken the statements in the positive to be a joke, a negative; and we have taken their statements in the negative, which could be the lies, the embarrassment, the fear, as the positive and truth. But the statements are there. Sir Paul even said, at one point, when asked about the rumour's existence, that it exists "Because Paul McCartney's dead, of course." This is shocking or completely only funny, depending on our own point of view.

The (now-knighted Sir) Paul McCartney interviewed by Claes Elfberg, 1972.

Statements exist over history, which deny and which confirm the rumour. Determining which way we should interpret those statements is our job, in a coverup. But statements do exist both ways.

We need to understand that if and only if there is a ruse, which cannot be determined by statements alone from the putative tricksters, magicians, liers, even if they are not evil liers, then we cannot take their statements for what they seem to be to us at first, with our prejudice possibly miscategorizing them! But yes, they spoke, on both sides of the issue.

Even if McCartney did not die and was not replaced, this is only reasonable to say about statements and our interpretation of them.

What we will be going through might sometimes seem as if the arguments are that stretched, if you cannot think through what would be required for an unpleasant event to have occurred, but all arguments here are actually quite provable to have occurred in other situations.

For example, some:

Families lie.
Persons in high places cover up events.
Artists express grief.
People get confused.
People let things slip over time, even sneakily because they want to have some feeling of reality though you do not always know it.

And so forth.

NOTHING we discuss will be impossibilities given current physics and all will have some precedent which, if you knew those precedents, you would not say this situation of a ruse and replacement, and the various aspects which would make it desirable and doable could not be desired and done.

That does not mean is WAS done. We need to determine whether it was done. But it opens the question at every point you, the reader, might think it COULD NOT have been done.

All of this should be obvious, but some people seem not to think this through, just for the sake of the mental picture of the situation which we would need to have if something had occurred.

We need to remember from the outset and strongly that we are the ones determining the truth of the matter at arm's length, but that was not true for the Beatles. and, if the event occurred for real that Paul was replaced after death, then some others would also know -- but remember, many would not know and could speak effusively out of their own ignorance and confusion, if people close to someone could be confused. Can they be? We will find that they can be, in some circumstances from other cases. But even so, probably most people would not be told or even need to be confused. Employees change over, for the most part; a few old friends might be told, or maybe there would be only letters to them, as if from the old Paul. We cannot know the exact details, but it is possible this could have been done.

Of course, the existential truth of the matter is known to those who were Beatles and a few close persons over time and anyone helping with the ruse, if it was done, and would not be known by many others who might seem close to the matter but were kept out of the factual loop. Meanwhile, now, we are determining for ourselves the truth; they can lie or tell us, and we can miss which category to put their statements in.

Alfred Gescheidt from Henri Dauman Pictures. "Double Talk," 1969. (Ironically, this image was made in the year when the formal disclaimers about the rumour began to proliferate, however there was one textual disclaimer much earlier, which actually is proof, therefore, of a rumour started by or continued by the Beatles early on, in February 1967.) Image from here.

We must be careful, then, to recognize where our own prejudice can come in: if there are statements by Beatles and others, saying things did or did not happen, are we not possibly making a mistake to ourselves where they could tell us truths and we think they were lying and, conversely, we could be telling ourselves things they said were true when they were lying? It is, of course, maybe what we are doing, but we cannot determine that from the statements alone.

But yes, they did make statements, in different ways, and on both sides of the issue. There is not no statement made at all by them.

Some people ask for "irrefutable evidence" for this case. They do not understand how whole lines of reasoning can function as the "irrefutable" evidence, nor that there is no such thing as truly irrefutable evidence in any case: we argue from induction, that is, we are always philosophically technically speaking in doubt of our own position, in the real world! Sometimes it is truly ludicrous to say we do not know something, but technically speaking we never exactly know anything in the real world. We can say, if we really need to, that everybody has a spinal column who can lift his or her head and grow to adulthood, but since the issue is not mathematics alone, we are still technically speaking in the real world of argument, and in the real world of argument, we can never know formally, exactly anything. Usually that is unnecessary to point out, and indeed it can be misused in cases where we do know what occurred, to say we cannot know, just because we have to go to the level of mathematics to say we do not ever know anything exactly except in math.

Sorry to go to extremely subtle points there, for a moment, but it is why we say "Beyond a reasonable doubt" instead of "irrefutably for sure". And even then, the term "reasonable" is misused by most people when quoting the term there, and juries have to be reminded what "reasonable" means in the case of argument. It means using the best forms of reasoning logic, but also what feels reasonable, emotionally, after emotionally and logically trying on the postulate fully. It does not mean beyond any argument at all, no matter how stretched, such as that "maybe a human grew up without a backbone and could lift its neck because God gave it strength". Even that is thinkable but it is not tenable given current medical physics as known.

We also need to be able to think through this issue from the point of view about DNA tests.

DNA cannot be gotten and protected in a chain of custody without a court order. It would have to be tested on known Liverpool-related family, which would be Paul's brother or his children, or a cousin and not tested on Sir Paul's known kids, of course. If there is a ruse, this ruse goes beyond a few guys in a band. There would be no such formal DNA tests allowed in several ways: people would refuse to give the samples, and if there is a ruse, it is part of the judicial process as well, in high places, in the sense that the case could be thrown out through corruption (conspiracy) in loyalty to insiders of the intelligence services or even a few in the government -- yes, defensive human beings could well feel this is a national secret.

Does that sound "too big"? Whether Paul died or not for real, we have to get real about what this ruse would entail. A few phone calls and the case would be thrown out. Not everyone would know, not everyone would want a coverup, but enough could be told to maintain the coverup in the right channels. Let us move on.

As to family itself: one could test Paul's Liverpool brother or a known cousin, as was mentioned, for DNA. But of course they scoff at the idea and will not give samples. Think about this for a moment, if it has not occurred to you: they would almost certainly want to keep the coverup going if they know of it, many family members would not know anyway, being estranged from Paul at the time of the putative switch, and new generations would not have to be told. As well, there would be no way Sir Paul himself would give DNA, though maybe, many generations from now, someone in the wider McCartney family will be tested with someone from the known Sir Paul children's lineage and settle the matter, when all the rancour is long calmed in the public over the issue.

Two figures shaking hands in peaceful co-operation. Given the supposed silliness of the rumour of Paul's death, if there were in fact a cover-up, known or unknown to family members, there would be plenty of excuses for them not to provide DNA to settle the matter at this point. Will definite family lineages one day agree to settle the matter publicly with DNA either way (lineages, that is, from what would be the two men's families if there were two men as Paul, the figure we know as one)? Image from here.

Anyway, we cannot guarantee chain of custody without a court and there would be some corruption to throw out a case such as this before that happened. It is not a huge conspiracy required for this potential ruse, but it is wide in types of people who would help this.

An example of what we will face throughout this article is the following:

Probably no way would Paul McCartney say he joined the Beatles as an already set-up affair. Yes, he met John Lennon's loose group of skiffle music players and joined them, through George Harrison, actually. But it was not the Beatles by name or by group members, for several years after. Could he mean the skiffle group when Sir Paul McCartney says he joined them as an "already set-up affair"? On the off chance he could, we can say we are not sure of this statement; but let us at least chalk it up as odd, that is, as evidence also towards a possible replacement.

Sir Paul McCartney talks of joining the Beatles as a "set-up affair". Is this a mistake, or a moment of admission by the putative double for a dead Paul? Of course, one item alone cannot definitely prove the matter either way. But in context, it can, or can show high likelihood of one side of an argument over another. Is this such an item? This video is on Youtube, by a pseudonym "Iamaphoney", referring to the idea that Paul now is not Paul and is a phoney. The video is one of a long series, called "The Rotten Apple Series" (Beatle Apple records company being "rotten" with the lie, presumably). The images are often composites and contain flashing images for more references, and for different layers of serious study, as well as for emotional impact. Sometimes images are matched, for effect, with the wrong audio, as when a clip shown does not come from exactly when the words were said. Image-makers do this all the time, but of course sometimes it is confusing to research. Iamaphoney also slows down or speeds up audio sometimes, for effect emotionally or to have the listener notice something. This video is "Rotten Apple 38 ." [sic] (All videos are numbered in the series with strange number combinations, and sometimes periods.)

And Sir Paul talks of having had jobs in factories, though no biography mentions this at all for Paul in Liverpool, and in fact, it seems there is no room for that in his life, for Paul was in school and playing in the developing band with John Lennon through his teens in the definitely Liverpool-Paul history. Who is right? Or is Sir Paul mentioning a bit of his own life as a young person, but not as Paul?

Another "Iamaphoney" video from the "Rotten Apple Series" (number "62 n"), in which, at 0:64 seconds, Sir Paul says he had a couple of jobs in factories, and even indicates details of his work with his hands, as he talks of how his life could have been different. Indeed it could, if somehow he found his way into the Beatles as a replacement for Paul. Is that what is the truth here? Can we know beyond our feelings of certainty?

Think about it. If you assume something would be said, which is reasonable enough -- for often, things are leaked in some way in a coverup -- have you thought through what would be said, or leaked, in what times and places and what kinds of items you might wish to look to find for a specific case, and what would be said to deny it all, when the feeling of the speaker got too close to embarrassment, felt they were maybe saying something too shocking?

 In other words, if there were denials, would you think them real, and if there were admissions would you categorize them as a joke?

And why would the Beatles lie? We will cover this issue in many ways, just to see what we discover as possibilities -- not any possibilities, but informed possibilities. However, let us say for now on this issue, people can want to feel they have expressed a truth while not risking the ire of actually facing the person they have lied to.

Let us repeat that: if there were a grisly death and a fearful coverup -- for whatever reasons, done and felt necessary at the time -- then the persons involved would not likely easily want to come out with it, nor would be merely disrespectfully playing around with the death idea if they cleverly found ways to feel they had "told" the people they had lied to, would they? A lot of persons say quite unreasonable things at the outset of the inquiry we are embarking on, which is a reasonable inquiry into something that seems unreasonable. One unreasonable thing that people say about it all, is that the Beatles just put such clever things into their artwork and music -- if they did -- that it is silly to think it could be about a real death, since that would be something they would not "joke" about.

It is also true that not all family members would know, even over time. If the Liverpool family of the putatively original Paul did not tell all branches of the family, then that would not be known widely. Certainly, Sir Paul McCartney would have no reason to tell his children, though he might have, if he were not the original. And his own inner family circle? We cannot know what is the case there, if he is not Paul; he could have been estranged from family. We will get into that. But it is not impossible.

And so we continue to look for ways to actually prove or disprove the situation as we learn about the contents of the claim and rumour. 

But is clever artistry a joke just because it is clever? Hardly so. If there were a real death in any artist's life, some of their references to it would be clever. Under pressure to only refer to it sometimes, an artist (or anyone, say, an abuse victim) will become clever in trying to express the feelings.

And, it seems obvious to this author, though it is not for some people, so it deserves a mention, if we are dealing with a coverup -- agreed, an outrageous postulate to start with -- but if we are, then some of the works of art and mentions of the fact verbally would be to express only so far and mostly to themselves what had happened. Yes, the works would also be for you, but without your being able to fully identify the situation and harm them.

This is like a child who needs to express to a potentially abusive parent, that in fact they did something wrong; the child will express only part of the issue at a time, so that internally that child can feel there was some truth passed out, and the parent only "missed it", while also of course setting up the situation in which the parent would likely miss it. If the parent begins to guess, the child may go into denial, or flamboyant, over-the-top admissions, to deflect the parent.

The public is like the potentially abusive parent here, in the Paul death scenario, if the Beatles lied. There would be shame, and fear of you, as a reactive person in a  group of persons with others who might hate them, pick on them, not understand and forgive.

There is also the fact that there may have been outside threats at times, to their telling such a fact -- as more persons became involved in helping them cover it up. Initially, a few doctors, police and intelligence agents, and one or two in the industry itself would help. Over time, most people would not know, but more people in number would be required for new help in keeping up the ruse: a phone call here, a document there -- those sorts of things. The number of persons directly in the know would not spread so much, except by more detailed rumour than the public would have; but the number of people actually helping would slightly increase through direct need over time.

Again, we are the ones determining truth; we are not in the know of the truth existentially, hence we have to think through whether we are categorizing items correctly when we find them:  statements about how the rumour is or is not true, coming from the Beatles, must be considered meaning the opposite of what we think they mean, if, in case, we have the meaning prejudicially miscategorized in our minds.

This also goes for the so-called clues themselves: we tend to treat the material as a joke, metaphor, money-maker ploy or some such. Certainly, some of the material is clever, but it is mostly tightly thematically grisly and sad. What we have to determine is whether our category for it, as not being literally true about Paul and a putatively later Paul, is a correct category of dismissal. The Beatles knew whatever the material indicated, and knew what their statements denying and affirming it meant, but we have to categorize it more carefully.

The fact that most statements from the Beatles were in denial of the possibility of a ruse is natural if there was a ruse. And of course they also said things which were degrees of acknowledgment which have been taken as joking, if they were telling the truth and we want to ignore those things. Of course John Lennon gave false answers at times, if he needed to lie; would you trust the coverup artist to tell you straight up, if he is one? Instead, did he tell in many other ways? As the title of this article names, there is an item now discussed in full, showing that he drew Paul dead privately, and accurately, too. The question will really be, why did he do this? Maybe it could have been somehow just for a joke? Or maybe Paul died.

There is far more than one thing, though. Many people are familiar with strange imagery from the Beatles, or what people take to be strange imagery. But even Sir George Martin's formal coat of arms almost certainly shows the long-rumoured method of death for Paul. Why? Is the representation on the coat of arms done from the rumour, or is it to honour -- and the drawing by Lennon to exorcise -- memory of a real event for these people?

Whether Paul died or not, there is far more going on with the history of the rumour itself and far more material amassable in a serious way, which could lead some people to think Paul died. This in itself is important to know, and becomes a very interesting study of what had seemed to many people for so long, just a simple idea, a stupid idea. Perhaps the Paul death advocates are wrong, but they can be shown not to be mere whackos.

This author had decided to disprove the circumstantial case that Paul died. In fact, she had only heard spoofs of the rumour and thought that anything like it would be a great opportunity to demonstrate a coverup falsehood, a mistake in the public, given that some urban myths, so to speak, are patently false. She knew well how myth and image can be misinterpreted, for she also had a lot of background in how myth and image are constructed for meaning, and so she knew how they would tend to come to be, or be misinterpreted instead. She could thus probably compare fairly well what people said about the so-called clue imagery with what the internal evidence was for how images were composed to make a meaning, as well as probably compare most of the external, or known contextual reasons for why the images were composed as they were. This does not mean she, or anyone, knew all the inner dreams of all artists and photographers, but just how people tend to think in imagery, how to reverse engineer, so to speak, if there is some connection between images, should there have been an event to cause them or not.

Having made her way through only a little bit of the material, however, surrounding the rumour, she realized quickly that the spoofs were often not only misrepresenting the material, the so-called Paul is dead clues, but grossly misrepresenting them -- which she had not known, beforehand. A bit further on, she happened upon some other materials, and more even later, including the current source of the title for this article. She also had worked through what is available for forensic and other forms of more direct reference to the death of Paul idea. This still-ongoing article writing is the product of those researches.

She discovered that, even if Paul did not died, John Lennon almost certainly drew Paul dead, and accurately so, if he supposedly died of serious headwounds of a certain kind. She also noted, with others, that Sir George Martin, producer of the Beatles, almost certainly shows the long-suggested method of the putative death, on his formal coat of arms. And she learned much more about the rumour's own history.

Even if Paul did not die, or the formal types of proof for it are insufficient to come to a good conclusion, we can remark at the outset that it is true that too many people cannot properly even entertain thoughts counter to their own experience, as they think that experience to be. It can be the superficial sensory experience, or some -- unknown to them -- superficial complex idea they have about reality. The famous example from the days of Copernicus and Kepler about the workings of the solar system is but one.

Not that one's ideas have to always be wrong, if some other idea is distasteful or seems impossible, but sometimes one's ideas were in face wrong. How can we know? We can only know, if we entertain, at least at first, a true picture of the opposite idea. This is what accepting the idea temporarily is: an entertainment of its full general and detailed outline. We have to accept it temporarily, to compare all that it has to say with all that our side has to offer -- even things we did not know were on our side, we may learn in the process. We must go back and forth, from it, as it develops, as if on a back burner, to the idea we like, on the front burner.

Image from here.

But we must, yes, build it up, too.

Image from here.

Sometimes, we may end up accepting the new idea. Sometimes, we may not.

But when there is in fact a trick, some people will notice suggestions there was one, or even see the trick directly, while others call them crazy, or, maybe only wrong. If there is in fact a trick, there will be many ways to prove it; some will be what is called in court "circumstantial" evidence, or evidence "around" the issue; there may be some complex ways to tell, some simpler ways, some incomplete but slightly suggestive ways, but there should be some ways to tell.

In other words, we must build up, from known possibilities, or possibilities which occur to us as we become more informed in the context of other things of the same kind as those we are considering, a context for the case. As such, we do not have to say the case is good yet, or will win overall.

But if we are considering doubles, family lies, even larger conspiratorial cases (meaning, technically speaking, not an untruth, but two or more persons engaging in the same sort of thinking enough to plot or participate in a lie or somewhat unpleasant action or even corruption), then we have to, for each aspect, look at how these things can and sometimes do occur.

This sort of thing gives us a context, a rubric, a matrix of insights into how our own case could be, or not be possible.

Context will allow us to bring our own case's issues to their fullest expression. Like having a functioning cooker, a stove, context will be our wider hypotheses, tested from other cases and from reasoning about psychology and so on. Context, or contexts for each part of our case, will be important.

Image from here.

They are not simply "wild speculation", but rather informed speculation about our case, from areas of life where they are not speculative as much anymore.

Context will help us to understand our own case better. Only our case's own inner logic will prove it or not, but it cannot even be entertained as an idea without context: like cooking food without a stove or fire, we would be too easy to dismiss the "ingredients" of the case, the evidence amassed. Once we have put the two together, then we can assess the merits of the true, finished picture. Even the picture may have some holes in it, where direct evidence was unavailable, like missing bacon in a bacon-lettuce-tomato sandwich. But if we know that bacon must have been present and could have been removed, we may still be able to say there was a full BLT there once.

You may think this is funny, and in some ways it is intended to be a lighthearted metaphor, but it is also very accurate to what kinds of processes we will have to engage in, emotionally and intellectually in proving or disproving any case, even ones we find distasteful, so to speak.

Some people will never see a difference or hear a difference in a double or "doppelganger" type, especially if the two people being compared are entrenched in their -- now confused -- mental categories. Two visually different and audially different and differently talented people would have striking differences if one had known them as separate persons, of course, but if enough similarities overlap in our minds, then certain expressions they make (audially, visually or in talent areas) will strike us as categorically the same and the differences as incidental, when the other way should be what we have processed in our minds.

How does one distinguish proper categories? Well, one has to determine some contextual parameters -- in our case, these are, of themselves, unpleasant things already, such as lies and power brokers and self-deception. In the case above, one determines colours. Note, however, that only partly assessing by colour will not work. The argument -- here made visually -- must complete its task, which it has done on the left, but not on the right. Image from here.

Many differences are quite openly acknowledged in Paul (the figure as the same man always) from before late 1966 and after. Some are to do with style of music, some to do with voice, some to do with relatively big changes in overall attitudes to drugs, some to do with looks. These things are usually explained as coming from "the era" of "psychedelia": that as the band moved from incipient forms of artistic experimentation with music to match drug experience, in late 1965 through 1966, it simply burst out with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album in 1967, with radical changes in voice techniques, styles of dress, and so on. Other changes in Paul himself are chalked up with age or, in the case of one biographer, who utterly discounts the idea that Paul was different as a person after 1966, chalked up to a "lobotomy", jokingly, because of some of the truly insipid songs by Sir Paul McCartney after the Beatles, though the biographer does praise much of his work after the Beatles.

But though some changes in the man have come with age, and some changes in the band's attitude in the 1960s happened from the era, are all of the changes categorically due to those things?

Sometimes necessity is the mother or co-sponsor, at least of invention, and some of these things which the band did, or Sir Paul did, could be overdetermined -- that is, have more than one cause, not just be due to an era or natural ageing process.

For those who misunderstand the Occam's Razor argument (a common enough thing to misunderstand), we will discuss below how simpler explanations are not in fact the only arbiter of argument viability. In fact, it is only when two competing arguments explain all the evidence equally and one is simpler, that that one ought to be chosen. Nor does Occam's Razor mean that complex arguments are not okay at all; many times complexities can be summarized simply, but complexity is the norm for all processes in life, not the exception.

Paul's death, as a postulate or final judgment could be stated simply. Paul's life could also. Both have complexity. Which one, however, would be the better explanation of all the evidence, and, moreover, can we bear to think we have been tricked, if we do not personally see or hear any differences as categorical difference?

Even if death is not the case with Paul, some people claim it is. Are they crazy, or just wrong -- with good reason to be wrong -- or are they right?

Same hand showing both "right" and "wrong" on a card in the same image. "Right vs Wrong: No Shortcuts Allowed" image from here.

And it takes work, unfortunately, including plenty of hypotheses to be tested by context or by directly looking for evidence which possibly fits or does not fit each hypothesis along the way. We will have to go through this process many times over. And sometimes, one's heart does not know, without informed opinion. In the end, will your heart know, even if you cannot see a switch, that in fact you were lied to -- if it did happen? Only if you let all the questions and answers and likely connections on both sides fully speak to you.

Right, wrong and question open, many times over, with the caption "Your heart always knows". Maybe the heart knows in the end, sometimes, but not in the beginning: that is what Sherlock Holmes, the "world's greatest detective", might point out, in an emotionally acknowledging moment. Image from here.

Darn. It is a lot of work. No wonder lawyers charge a lot (too much?). Anyway, it is a lot of work.

Letters for the word "work" being worked on by little figures, metaphorically. Image from here.

We will not argue all images or how all comparisons are done. A good sense of the Paul is dead argument from imagery in general, though, can be gleaned with the following comparison.

First, we must note that the rightside up photos seem quite similar in some ways -- not all ways. They seem more radically different in facial shape upside down, which is sometimes a telltale way to help a brain recognize differences.

Second, however, perhaps there is a camera lens issue here, or lighting. It is arguably so, however there is a typical look for each supposedly different person which is, in fact, represented in this comparison. The one on the left is Paul McCartney, the one on the right an early post-replacement picture of the putative replacement. All early pictures of the putative replacement show him roughly longer-faced. Later pictures sometimes have quite rounded faces, usually to the point of clear distortion, however.

Third, as time went on, the Paul is Dead advocates point out, the replacement would have had more cheek filler added and so on. Basic facial structure cannot be changed, but some impressions could be. So, in this early comparison, is it lens distortion or a closer-to-natural look of a different person whose similarities were enhanced in different ways over time? Could we ever peel back the putative layers of plastic surgery on later photos? There are ways, which the very last segment of this article will go into, and they have to do with which particular features are measured, and compared to which other features, since some things plastic surgery cannot alter without deformity resulting. Even so, the formal forensic studies which will be referenced have been challenged -- not professionally, however, for the general ridicule attaching to the subject has rendered even the formal work generally met with silence or irrelevant comments by others in the field.

These introductory comments on the faces are outlined above, just to give the reader a sense of the problems ahead, when arguing the matter forensically. However, just note for the moment that there is a difference more clearly visible in the upside-down photo below, and it is a typical look for the putative Paul just after late 1966, so the image is not, in that sense, "cherry picked", out of character for the period, nor is the look for Paul before late 1966 atypical. Television lenses can radically alter people, but the general looks are typical for many films and TV and camera representations for the putatively two men.

Paul McCartney from press conference in Memphis, Tennessee, USA, August 19, 1966, and the putative replacement for Paul in an interview outside EMI studios, London, England, in December 1966. These images are presented at a pro-Paul death Website, here.

We will not argue the issue around the putative replacement of Paul mostly from facial considerations.

However, the general width and length of these faces aside, and the angle of the heads relative to each other up and down being different here aside, we can notice mainly even so a general lack of cheek angle, relative to forehead (ocular ridge bone structure) for the image on the right. It is in combination with a general lengthening, but lengthening does not take away all angular relationships unreasonably. Is the figure on the right merely a lengthened version of the one on the left? The cheekbone width is one thing, but its relationship also to the setting of the eye is noticeably different in the next comparison.

A decision may be able to be made by a jury even if they never fully see a trick personally or fully feel the case was the best one, if the arguments make them feel they must judge a certain way anyway, in spite of their personal feelings otherwise.

We will show only one more comparison here, to demonstrate that the images above are not atypical of the first year of the supposed replacement's general face shape, before further putative plastic surgery changes could distract from the basic shape, though certain things could never really be changed well enough to fool careful measurement, if there was a change.

Some comparisons seem more similar, but in general, there is often the kind of facial structure difference seen here between Paul McCartney before late 1966 and Sir Paul McCartney after. The image on right is a film still, from 1967, in the "Strawberry Fields" film. Are these different enough and for the right reasons that the two periods show different people? If so, how could it have happened, and if so, what would explain more similar photographs? Or is this difference only from lens distortion and facial expression and lighting? Image comparison from here.

Again, both figures have cheekbones, but the relative lack of high and wide upper cheek relative to the eye sockets seems to be different. The mouth widths at rest seems also to be different. Sometimes Sir Paul McCartney does show a narrow mouth, but it often is not when at rest. That sort of thing cannot be changed in plastic surgery; impressions have to be carefully measured, it is true, and compared with other issues, to determine if the item in question is significant or not.

Is this someone who "just grew into his head" over time, either, as some people claim? Is that not too incorrect even for consideration? The changes under discussion include facial structure changes, as well as head shape relative to face, if they are changes at all. So the issue would really be: are the changes seen here significant types of changes, and caused by difference in personhood, a category change. Obviously there are differences. Are they due to camera lens? Time and expression? The changes are typical between images before September 1966 and forward from late November, 1966, with the exception of what may be cheek filler, but still does not change the general length of the face, and what is very distorted overall lens work in very few photos, which does.

This is true of all aspects of arguments we will discuss, as well. No one item is "it", alone. In other words, even if something is a telltale item, it can only be knowably so in context of other things.

Is it a key ingredient? First we must know for what dish we ask that question. Image of separate ingredients being tossed, from here.

Back to the images of the single man Paul or the two men as Pauls, for a moment, though: the image comparisons above are not given to make the reader rush out and find counter-examples. The issue is complex. There are some images which clearly distort Sir Paul's face. There are other images where the young Paul is particularly distorted long, or dragging on a cigarette, and his face seems longer. If the two are really the same then the typical look for them should have the same angles of basic face structure. Impressions from other angles should also be consistent with how that typical look would transform under different expressions. Finding a particularly distorted frontal image of one to compare with a very different expression in the other is like comparing apples to oranges.

We will not base our discussion below on facial photographs, however. We will raise the photographic evidence along the way, of course, but we will also discuss the general case, so that if we had no photographs at all, we might still appraise the issues surrounding this strange case.

Voice is another matter. Describing voice in words is very difficult. We will find that no formal comparison has been made of pre-late 1966 Paul with later Paul vocal tracks, except once, and that was done on songs, which is not the court protocol; nor do we have the details of the findings of that comparison, for how it was done. We can note here, however, that that professional thought that Paul was not the same person. Yet we know there was voice morphing used, especially in 1967, right when the putative replacement was put in. Was the morphing enough to confuse not only the public but also this professional, wrongly, that a replacement was made, or was the morphing due to a real switch in bandmate? Professional voice comparison of spoken tracks would be possible, but has not been done.

We cannot know without other argument, whether the voices formally differ.

And what about talent? Body movements? Songwriting skills? Could some mimicry, some talent and training, some difference all be mixing in our minds?

Petri dish tests on human intestinal microbes. These look very pretty, but each one tests for a specific microbe. The microbes would not show up, or be properly categorizable, without asking the right questions. Image from here.

We will discuss all of this, along with the general indications of artistic and biographical material surrounding the idea that Paul died and was replaced. We will, as mentioned above, however, also discuss the opposing arguments as we go.

One thing that is important to remember, though, is that though you may be right if you never think there is a trick here -- with Paul McCartney now, versus Paul McCartney before late 1966 -- you may well instead, let us say, be wrong and never see it directly. Or you may be wrong in a different way: see and hear some changes while categorizing that difference as being from camera distortion only or age, when maybe it is not.

What this article will show both sides of the issue but that will include that, sadly, there are plenty of legitimate ways for people to argue that there was a trick -- even if, let us say perhaps, there was not actually a trick.

This means the case is interesting.

DNA is not available for us (though there is an intriguing possibility that a test for DNA which was done, could be the actual, existential proof of Paul's death, but it was not done in a certain way). Even if DNA tests were done in the way we would need them to be, however, the test could be put into doubt by some people, for example. Also, how could we get DNA with proper chain of custody proof, anyway, if we are not able to order it done, and order the control sample from a known original family member? (Children of Sir Paul would not count, of course. We would not seek to compare the father to his known children, only to his presumed parental relatives or his presumed blood siblings.)

So instead of asking now for DNA, we will learn about the rest of the issues. Enjoy the ride ...

... and please, keep calm. The idea of Paul's death in late 1966 and covert replacement seems far fetched at the outset, this author will grant you, but that turns out to be only a surface, a prima facie feeling, even if we find that Paul did not die.

It is not, when all things are considered, as far fetched as one might wish, even if it is not true.


So, even if Paul McCartney did not die and was not replaced, it turns out there is quite a lot of surprising information now available about the rumour which claims he did die and was replaced.

John Lennon.

The idea that Paul McCartney of the Beatles died and was replaced is called "Paul is dead", and is a famous claim, a rumour. It gained notoriety in the USA in 1969-1970 but it turns out that it was rumoured before that. We will show that. But anyway, the explanation for the rumour is a different thing. If it is true, it means not only that people were tricked by others, but that their own ways of telling themselves what they are hearing and seeing have been slightly off -- enough to leave them seeing one man for two!

It is a rather famous idea, the Paul death idea, at least among some people.

One famous, possibly silly reference to the idea is in the movie "Sleepless in Seattle" (1992).

"Sleepless in Seattle" movie clip (1993). Are the writers leaking the idea that they know or suspect Paul died, or just referencing the idea? It might seem odd to some that this was included at all, but of course we cannot know for sure, even if we conclude Paul died, that the writers had one motive over another. Video archived here.

Again, even if Paul did not die and was not replaced, we are going to show how the case is built for the idea that he died and was replaced. We have to see how strong it is or not, if we want to know anything about it accurately, so we build it and compare what we think that way with what we thought the other way.

Theoretical considerations will always seem thin on their own, but they provide context to explain things in any specific instance. We will go back and forth between facts which might need explanation, and the general possible considerations we might find if we thought one thing or another about them.

This is proper reasoning.


On Arguments:
An overview of the problem facing the writer and reader of whatever seems improbable or impossible

This article is probably the most difficult kind of thing a person can write. A person who has discovered that there are some intriguing problems with how much people know about a topic, when that topic is highly contentious, whether it is found to still fit the public's prejudice -- pre-conceived notions -- overall in the end, or whether it is found not to fit their general impressions, is still a very hard thing to organize.

Paul McCartney does not have to be dead and replaced for us to think about and learn about the issues surrounding the idea. But many of us will feel, at the outset or at some point, extremely frustrated that the discussion is occurring at all -- here or anywhere. This author knows that, and will address it throughout.

The Beatles music group's star, on pavement in Hollywood, California's "Walk of Fame". The questions raised in this article do not diminish the band's contributions simply by asking, or even, if we find we do so, concluding that the group did a coverup. Instead, the questions raised in this article simply help us be sure who the Beatles are, and what their real contributions, good and bad, have been. Most people are sure, emotionally, perceptually, about this issue already. But are their emotions and perceptions accurate? And if they are correct, how can we formally show that? In other words, how do we know what we know? Image from here.

Moreover, there are some interesting things, even besides forensic issues, for us to know about the case for and against Paul's having died in late 1966. We can learn the truer history of the rumour itself, than what is usually presented in average books or Websites. And we can learn some very interesting detailed thematic references to the idea, as well as some definitely planted ones, even if Paul did not die.

This article is loosely based around a newly elaborated discussion of an item little discussed before, an item drawn by John Lennon, in a famous collection but rarely seen. It is a drawing of an anatomically accurate impression of a dead Beatle, with indications from its specific wounds and general similarity to other things mentioned by John, that it is of Paul, not another Beatle. And yes, a drawing could be done as a joke, hoax or metaphor, but this drawing was done in private, is accurate, grisly and careful in some key ways, suggesting even without other considerations, that if -- if -- Paul could be dead and replaced with the current Paul, in a situation -- if possible -- also fooling most of the public, that that would, sadly and shockingly, be the best explanation for the drawing.

Cracked egg. Though this is far less accurate to head injuries than we will find the drawing to be, but a good mental simplification of what happens to a head when impacted by a car or in a car. Image found here.

Will our resistance, if we are resistant, take us over from hearing the information out, as a jury member who quits, even if they were right in their assumptions but wrong in their reasoning?

First of all, we have to be honest enough about how we know what we know, or think we know things, to remember that allowing feelings of incredulity to take us over makes it harder to bother with something!

Refusal. Image from here.

Or will our resistance force a "U-turn", force us to turn around?

In other words, will we stop to look or will we resist, and what would we find if we turned around in our assumptions for a moment?

Paul does not have to have died and been replaced for this image to have two possible meanings for our emotions. It implies there is no way out. --- 1. Is our resistance like this, making us refuse to look? That would be irresponsible, even if we were correct in our assumptions. --- 2. Or is this image going to mean something else, whereby we will be forced to stop resisting and face a seemingly bizarre idea and say it is not so bizarre after all? --- Who knows for sure, at the outset? Do you really know how you know what you think you know? Can your ears and eyes and mind be just a little bit off in what they combine as, enough to confuse differences from two people as mere age and lighting changes for one person? Even if they can be tricked, were they tricked and are they tricked now by something in Beatles' history about Paul as dead? Image from here.

In terms of this article's structure, though, some people will want to have DNA, fingerprints, voice analysis or other forensic issues discussed right away. There are reasons we will not do that. DNA and fingerprints are unavailable; DNA has to be gathered under protocols anyway, with a specific chain of custody -- as do all forensic samples, actually, if no other public record is known for them -- and comparison would have to be made from a known family member as well, but not the person's children, to prove this particular case. Also, voice print samples have to be done on spoken voice -- for which there are plenty of samples available -- but costs a lot to get done to protocol levels, which has not been done. Some voice print samples have been tested, but they are for songs, which are not protocol. We will discuss the ins and outs of the forensic issues, including what we do have formal and informal work done on: face and ear, teeth and height. Those comparisons have different levels of professional expertise attached to the discussion, and anyway, require argument to understand, to trust as well, and, as with all facts, argument to understand where they fit in the general case for or against Paul McCartney's continuance, alive, one person after late 1966.

Again, Paul does not have to be dead and replaced with the current knighted Sir Paul as a different man, for us to learn about the case.

In order to refer respectfully to the person or persons in question in the rumour, "Sir Paul McCartney" will hereafter therefore refer to the bandmate we certainly knew by the name of Paul McCartney after fairly late 1966, though he was knighted long after 1966, whereas the term "Paul McCartney" will hereafter refer to the bandmate we certainly knew by the name of Paul McCartney before late 1966, that is, the putatively original Paul.

This can seem as if it is mere nuttiness, a crazy image in the mind, replacing reality. A case can be made for the existence of unicorns -- narwhals do not count -- but it falls apart very quickly when the counter arguments are raised and properly addressed. Is the hypothetical possibility of Paul's death even remotely tenable?

Image from here, from art page here.

For it to be tenable, it would have to at least be physically possible to trick people with similar types of people. It would also require opportunity for an initial switch. It would have to have some motive, though that might not be exactly knowable, just a set of likely possibilities if it were done. And so on.

If all of these are at least possible, then could our likely emotion against the idea of Paul's death be overcoming a real story, here? That is, can our emotion actually distort what we hear and see, and can biographies miss such a big thing?

In fact, they can, even if here they did not. A biographer can speak of two things as one thing inside his or her head, write facts said by one person and assume it was the other, thus confusing the timeline of who said what, and assume things occurred continuously when there are actually gaps in the record of what happened.

Gap in wall. What fills it? Nothing or something? Nonsense or a correction? Image from here.

If there are gaps, there are possible opportunities for other things to be going on, say, in the case of someone who is living a double life of crime on the one hand and goody two shoes on the others, corrupt deals, or something like that, could be filling in the gaps of what we know of them. But in cases such as that, or of the putatively different Paul after late 1966, are we filling in the gaps with nonsense to think of Paul now as not the same actual person as Paul then?

Nonsense fish by Edward Lear. Image from here.


Or, let us say for the moment, maybe not.

Help through gap in wall. Image by author, modified from here.

But only by noticing such things can other information gain the weight of the hint that it deserves. If it deserves little, then we will find that. If it deserves more, we will find that. That is how a case progresses to success or progresses and dies.

So let us progress and see what happens.

"Crazy". Still image is from moving image here.

The rumor is surely crazy.

Or do we really mean: Crazy or Wrong or Unknown? Actually, before we properly assess our ideas without prejudice and with the full case for the other side, we cannot say actually what is crazy. Could most of us have been fooled and fooled ourselves that Paul McCartney not only lives, being the same man as Sir Paul McCartney now, and that the Beatles and their circle and power groups around them would never lie or have to lie to keep the band going after the death? Yes, it could happen, though it may not have. Or let us put that differently:

when we say it could happen, we should refine that from "could it ever happen" to "could it happen in this case, maybe," so that we know what to look for as specific possible things to test about the usual story of the Beatles.

Could these people lie? What would that entail? Would it be disrespectful of the dead -- or enough disrespect, to stop a lie? How do lies function, and how would that apply here? What kinds of justifications would these people make to themselves if here they had done so? What could make this sort of thing continue for years? Can people be fooled in inner circles, media, public -- and in this case, would some lie for them and some be threatened, if here this had been done? We might even find evidence towards these things, but even if we do not find great evidence or any evidence, we can reason what might make the ruse possible in this case, just to see if it is even thinkable in this case, that these people could have wanted to do something like that, if Paul had died.

We need to think through these things so that we know if there are initial near-absolute stopping points in our case from the outset. Unfortunately, given what we will consider throughout on these points, the human relationships do not in fact pose as much of a problem for this kind of thing being done as the reader might hope or think they do. Why? People can justify, in confusion and terror, that their love (a friend, in this postulate) would want them to continue and can be afraid of others' (the public's) reaction to such a major band, with massive and tight artistic and imagistic links between the two main members, having an overt change in lineup. Also, once a lie gets started, embarrassment can snowball and, since such a ruse for the Beatles would have to involve identity coverup at a high intelligence service level, threats to keep the coverup going could come from those assisters, or even also from people inside the industry. Can lots of people know and stay silent? Everyone in fact who knew directly could have different reasons at different times for staying silent, the primary one for close friends being loyalty. Believe it or not, the Beatles were much loved by many people around them, despite their well-known shenanigans.

We will return to all these considerations, to flesh them out, but indeed, they do not have to stand in our way, at least not thus far.

Sometimes it is good to begin an inquiry with general impressions of the case, even a case a person least trusts.

General impressions. Image from here.

John became known generally as a truthteller, which is certainly true in many ways. But he also ran from certain kinds of problems, that is, he could deny uncomfortable truths to your face and tell only those closest and most loyal about certain things. Other people kept many secrets for years for him and for those around him. Some secrets came out in long anecdotes which would normally be challenged in court and have not been, yet are denied by some in the public to this day as being mere attention-grabbing, made-up stories. The topic in those cases is usually about the sexual and other personal habits of the Beatles at times.

Image edited from original here.

But did one big secret ... or could one big secret of a death ...

"Guitar death solo" by TovMauzer. Image from here.

come out without being talked about directly, only cryptically, by the Beatles and their friends? Some people think so. Did John and others indicate that something quite sad and strange had gone on which insiders to this day do not mention, even in tell-all memoirs? Could this be due to shame and fear and after that, threats from some others in a cover-up?

Image from here.

One way or another, there is a rumour of a secret death in the Beatles.

Here are some things we will show and, for each, the two main ways to treat them in argument:

Image from here.

Remember, please, dear reader, that no item on either side of any argument can be treated in isolation very long. We will list some items which will be coming up for discussion. Yes, each item, "ad hoc", or isolated, so to speak, must be assessed, with as much detail given as possible on its own, but also must be considered for its place in the whole of both sides of the case, before determining which explanatory hypothesis is best for the whole case, that is, before actually judging the overall merit of the case. Things can be "put on the back burner" in the mind, returned to, and returned to again. Meanwhile, the opposing arguments must also be considered, not only for each argument but for the whole.

Yet in looking at opposing arguments, we cannot stop and not build up the rest of the other argument either. Why? Because as we get through with one opposition, we might find some other way which undoes it. Back and forth we go, until the fullest cases are made.

The full explanation derived on either side is the theory, or case for that side, about a general idea, often also called a case. The determined likely truth, decided between them by informed opinion of likelihood -- not pure prima facie, or original feelings of likelihood -- then is called the decided or full theory, that is, the theoretical explanation of the case. This is true in science and in court.

We use the term "theory", here, in its best and technical sense, not as a mere notion or fantasy. Our minds come up with the hypotheses, but refine them with facts and arguments, and then choose between them. We use things we find as evidence, and items which are evidence may in fact fit both sides of the theory, both positions. Some may not, but they, too, must be explained by the other side as to why they are not to be significant.

So, here follow some items -- some aspects to the Paul McCartney history, official and unofficial -- which we will discuss. Some have only been turned up because people were looking at aspects of whether Paul died. Each item can be argued either way, as is often true in court. But the question will become, what is the best explanation of the details and cross-correspondences between them all. One side or other may be glossing over aspects of the evidence. It would then likely lose the argument, if we were honest and unprejudiced.

We will, hopefully, have some fun here, though it is a serious question we are raising, if it is to be studied properly, even if it is wrong that Paul died.

1. John Lennon drew Paul as dead from serious injury, anatomically accurately and privately:

John Lennon drew Paul as dead, accurately, privately and the drawing, is very special, if Paul died, because it is private, poignant, anatomically accurate to head injuries from being hit by a vehicle and smashing one's head open, and also means that, if Paul died, its having been done privately reduces its likelihood of being done for a public hoax, and if Paul died, it is the only and the most intense private expression we have at this time of John mourning and hoping for resurrection of his dead friend, while exorcising something of the disgusting physical reality he would have seen -- or it is not a really dead Paul, just an imagined one for a hoax or anatomically accurate metaphor, because John joked around at times and would doodle anything at all?

2. Beatles music producer, Sir George Martin's coat of arms seems strongly to reference the idea of Paul as dead:

Sir George Martin, Beatles producer, references Paul as dead in his formal coat of arms, awarded to him 2004 after he was knighted in 1996 -- or the heraldic content is done without meaning Paul really died, and just perpetuates a hoax, or even does not refer at all to the idea?

3. False (fake) ears are worn by Sir Paul McCartney for years in the 1960s and 1970s:

Sir Paul definitely wears false ears for years, to cover up his forensically different ears and surgery scars, and moustaches and fake moustaches on the Beatles distract from the change between their Paul bandmate figure -- or they are worn, yes (though some people seem incapable of processing the arguments to know how to tell between a false ear and a real one), but the false ears -- and moustaches -- mean nothing except a joke and style change?

4. There are four absolutely planted so-called PID clues:

There are four absolutely planted PID theme clues among many tightly thematic grief and accident theme references to Paul's death, three of them optically impossible as natural imagery, one of them in print, referencing exactly the ideas of Paul, his death and a car impact, in Beatles Book fan magazine, from February 1967, written very early after the supposed death of Paul as a disclaimer that nothing happened to kill Paul in a car impact, possibly because the Beatles were trying to contain a real rumour and real death -- or so what, for even the absolutely planted theme clues are for a joke or hoax or a false rumour, as the Beatles usually said they were?

5. Thematically tight links exist between many so-called PID clues:

There are many thematic likely PID theme clues (though even if done as a hoax, there are some likely wrong attributions) -- or whatever, because themes cannot be determined because all themes we find in life are merely our minds playing tricks?

6. Psychological rationalizations of lies occur in the world:

Families and close friends can feel that loyalty to the dead (or, in the case of abuse, often) is to lie: to help others continue their own dream with a lie -- or no way?

7. Doubles are known to exist and some are quite good, though not exact, of course, yet fool people:

Close aides of politicians have been fooled by some doubles for years -- or that is different?

8. People in power or fame (a kind of power) can be fearful of things we think they might not be:

There are plenty of reasons the Beatles might be convinced their band was over, unlike other less tightly knit groups, if Paul died -- or they would not dare and they are no different?

9. People can speak about a lie or what they know and be ignored:

Emilio Lari, photographer on the Beatles film "Help!" (1965), has recently stated in a long but edited interview that he is convinced Sir Paul is not Paul and, moreover, that he heard the rumour of Paul's death already in London in late 1966, long before the famous rumour in the USA in 1969 (and others seem to have spoken of the rumour as real, but been ignored) -- or he is confused about Paul's not being Sir Paul and is lying that he heard the rumour of death in late 1966 (and the others were joking or misunderstood)?

10. Our minds do most of our meaning-making out of our senses, and assumptions from previous experience influence our minds:

My ears and eyes do not generally lie without injury to them, though they have some basic limitations even when healthy, but my mind can lie to me, when putting together a meaning out of image and sound -- or I would never make enough of a mistake to miss a new Paul?

11. There is a forensic facial analysis of the timeline of photos of the supposedly single figure Paul McCartney, finding that the figure is two men in reality:

A legitimate doctor and photoanalyst, working with a computer assistant, found that Paul is not Sir Paul -- or their work was done on cherry-picked, wrong photos, and old photos or any photos cannot be analyzed for facial recognition anyway?

12. A real ear photo of Sir Paul McCartney, rather close up, does exist, and seems to show a major difference in it compared to the many closer photos of the younger Paul's ear:

Paul's ear differs from a clear image of Sir Paul's rarely shown real ear, in an area of complex cartilage, which surgery could not alter without mangling the overall ear, the difference being in the upper leg of the antihelix area, though the rest of the ear seems to have had some work done on it -- or it is a trick of light and angle on the ear?

13. One film of Sir Paul, early after the putative switch, shows very different eye colour details in his eyes than Paul had:

Paul's deep brown eyes differ from Sir Paul's hazel-brown green eyes, in the Strawberry Fields 1967 film closeups, and other photos were doctored and lighting kept dark or ambiguous on the eyes until slightly later in age -- or certain lighting conditions can turn deep brown can not only into a general ochre yellow-brown but also into bright mid-green, flecked with brown, or it is age of the film which turned the eyes a different colour?

14. Sir Paul looks at his hands more often while playing difficult musical passages on the bass guitar after 1966 than before 1967:

Sir Paul's playing requires his looking at his fingers more than Paul ever did in complex passages while singing -- or the musical passages simply differ from the early songs so much and Sir Paul is simply Paul but has more trouble playing them?

15. Songwriting can mimic another's ideas well, as can general vocal styles without achieving exactness and thrill people or fool them:

Vocal tracks in 1967-68 for the Beatles are known to have been altered, by speeding up or slowing down the voices, and this processing can really change what we are actually hearing, creating a blur in our minds as to the exact sound for the same or even for a slightly different person, if Paul is not Sir Paul, and after that, age becomes our excuse for an actually different Sir Paul, and songwriting differences are noted publicly by people thinking Sir Paul is the original Paul but they wrongly attribute why this happened -- or all this is unnecessary to consider?

16. DNA and fingerprints are unavailable for Sir Paul as compared to the definite original McCartney or his family, but some DNA was compared in court:

Sir Paul had to submit DNA, with a chain of custody by court order, for a woman whose claim of paternity by Paul McCartney from the early Beatles' Hamburg concert days was very strong, and he was shown not to be her father (and it was compared only between the two people, Sir Paul and Bettina, the claimant, not the original McCartney family itself, so it is not directly proven that Bettina is not Paul's daughter if Sir Paul is not Paul himself) -- or Bettina was not Paul's daughter, despite her strong claim and Sir Paul is Paul, just not Bettina's father?

These are only a few things we will discuss.

We will discuss them individually, and in combination, for both sides of the argument; in other words, yes, we will raise the objections to what might otherwise seem to be a real death of Paul, from these items and more. We will, that is, cover also what people might say about Paul's being alive: that Paul before late 1966 is the same person in Sir Paul.

Can our perceptions be a wee bit off, all over -- just enough to be entirely wrong in how we label something? Suspicion is a large part of starting to notice if there was a trick. Some people get suspicious too easily, some based on some mistake but sometimes we get suspicious on a hint which is real. So, not every time we are suspicious, is there is something worth noticing, but in noticing what we might wonder about initially, we can ask more questions, treat these suspicions as clues (that is, tentatively as leading to a conclusion), and continue with our investigation in order to be surer that we were correct in our suspicions or, alternatively, that we were incorrect and our original hopes of there being no need for suspicion are confirmed as being true.

Many people love to quote the Sherlock Holmes books, about questioning everything carefully. However, in practice, we often continue as if the things we are sure about really do not need to be questioned. Holmes contradicts us: Holmes' character says question everything, especially when we are sure of ourselves.

Image from here.

Our daily lives are busy. It is quite reasonable to excuse people for not questioning many things. But in fact, that ends up meaning that many people do live in ignorance of some things they should or, at least out of interest, could know. Yes, we are busy, but will we take the time to ask about these strange things we take for granted, and if so, will we then understand which are like Unicorns and which are quite real?

Nor will this article actually cover all the context for this issue. We will stick to mostly certain kinds of questions, just to determine if there is a way to be more formally certain of our perceptions about Sir Paul McCartney's identity relative to the images and sound and background of pre-late 1966 McCartney. We will only mention some contextual issues about the fact a putative replacement's could have possibly sinister aspects in his life story, due to the coverup, even if he was generally a nice fellow personally to many people.

We will show that we can have people who fool us, and that will largely be enough to move on to the question of whether we can tell if we were fooled. As long as someone could be found or prepared, and could fool us, we can move on, ultimately, to whether they were found and fooled us, or not, or if we cannot properly know that fact.

Remember, if we can determine whether there was or was not a replacement without asking how the replacement was found quickly, or whether it is likely or unlikely anyway, then it is enough to know that then somehow it was done by someone. Exactly who or how would not have to be known for the basic questions in the rumour to be answerable one way or another, if there is any way to answer them.

Most people's answers, are, of course, that the rumour needs no answer at all. But we are going to test that, and our perceptions, for the interesting "ride" (process) it may be to think this through, and also for intellectual honesty about how our perceptions can trick us.

As stated, there are several reasons for not jumping to thorny forensic considerations. Instead, though we will not seek merely to be biased for the idea that Paul now is not the original Paul, we will start with and intersperse our general discussion, with what kinds of considerations we need to know about the case at all. We will do this so as even to open ourselves, as if we were a jury, to a possibility that evidence could even maybe indicate that Paul is not alive and was replaced with a 5th bandmate named publicly with the same name. This overt discussion of argument methods throughout is a kind of reminder to the public reader of what a jury would have to hear from time to time, a reminder, that is, of the principles of what are acceptable methods of reasoning and what are not, in any case, but especially necessary as a reminder when a case is complex, thorny or resisted overmuch by even people who intend to be fair.

"Not Guilty" verdict from 11 white jury members; "Guilty" verdict from 1 black jury member with a caption as if he is thinking: "... but only because I find the prosecution's case to be lacking enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and not because I am nullifying a racist prohibition law that helped put more young black men in prison than in college." Image from here.

Paul does not have to have died for us to observe that an item, on its own, such as the drawing we will discuss, would best be explained as that he died. Something in isolation can mislead, either way. Other considerations can change our judgment. But if another person were drawn accurately dead in a sympathetic manner by a person not generally drawing death and knowing little of anatomy, for a putatively dead person we had no prejudgment about, then indeed, the drawing could indicate to us the likelihood that that person really was seen and drawn dead, "from life" (so to speak) or from a photograph, with head smashed, limbs broken, and so on.

We will, however, cover both sides of many more elements and arguments on both sides of the issue about the famous rumour of Paul McCartney's putative death during late 1966. We will cover not merely the drawing, by any means.

Let us ease into it.

Again, can we get confused?

Very similar persons, simplified. Spot the differences. Spot the similarities. These are characters from the animated film, "Despicable Me" (2010), though the image is unsourced, from here.

Well, yes we can. Not that we have to have, in the case of the man now knighted, Sir Paul, but let us say, for a minute, that this is what is being done. (We can always return to our conviction he is James Paul McCartney of the original years of the Beatles, if we find that he is.)

So how do we get confused? What actually happens? We notice things, maybe, but we categorize them wrongly. Or, sometimes we do not notice something at all.

Image of Laurence Fishburne's character from "The Matrix" movie (1999), famous for a line about truth which starts with the words "What if I told you". Someone has added to this image, putting the words, instead, "What if I told you you don't have to put all your 'Sass' files in the same folder." This was done for a computer site, here. It is included in the article you are reading here, because the concept that all different things must be in the same category, for example of one person changing by age and angle of lighting over time, is not necessarily always true, not if there is a doppelganger type, a similar person, a double, as is claimed for Paul pre-late 1966 and Sir Paul as a different man after late 1966.

Sometimes there is a similarity. A person can mimic some things better than others, does not have to be exact anyway, and you might buy it. There are lots of people with some effects which overlap in our mind; an angle being similar here, another angle there. When the head turns, these angles change differently than the original but have an overall effect which conflates in the mind.

Let us look at some examples and note how we could be fooled if we did not see them side by side, they were famous and we thought the changes were from age. Do you notice what is similar? Do you notice what is different? What if the person were moving and changing over time? Would that not confuse how sure you can be that you might excuse or not excuse any differences?

Any existential reality of a literal death of McCartney or not is one thing, but our taking the idea literally, however, requires certain things to help us determine it if it is so:

Are there any alibi-like historical or psychological conditions which would absolutely preclude a death and replacement. Were people at the right places or wrong places to make this happen? Or is "weirdness" or "grief" enough to count as a real alibi? Maybe, maybe not. It would require that perception cannot lie in certain ways and the public cannot make excuses to themselves in such a way that different persons' differences are explained as natural change.

Of course, most people think McCartney now is "exactly" the same. Or so they tell themselves. What do they really mean?

Of course, they know that people change? Sure, they mature, age, get new abilities or lose some. But in using the term "exactly the same" they reinforce something which -- if he is a double -- is, pardon the pun, doubly untrue! Not only are there many changes in any person physically, but also there are many changes in two people over time, and (ahem: a triple point) there is also a set of "changes" which are not changes, if they start out different!

Image from here.

Some changes or differences in life are not from age or camera. Image from here.

Of course, we all see the differences in these next images, probably. But why do we see them as meaningful differences?

The same would go for voice impressions in our mind. Let us discuss the visuals, though, since they are not mere graphs, as voice is, when represented in print.

Difference itself is not how we tell that the people are different people. We see many differences in the same people all the time. What we also sometimes confuse is whether someone is categorically different. We will show some images of categorically different people who, if you were not seeing them side by side, you might have a harder time gleaning their different categorical nature. If you were told that they are the same person at different ages, you might also be fooled. At least, you might be briefly fooled. But once you are not fooled, you notice more and more differences therefore. If you were fooled, more similarities and justifications would creep into your impressions. If they were famous and doubles for some political or superstar figure, you might well have a harder time.

They are rather shockingly similar in some ways upon first impression, and with a few more changes through plastic surgery, even staring at them would not resolve the issue for most people. They would keep justifying their emotional surety of sameness.

Doppelganger (double-like) human subjects from here.

But of course you would never be fooled. Or would you? Impressions of difference or sameness would conflate, and staring longer would feel odd to you, would it not? And then come excuses.

Not that Paulie has to have died, from these considerations we are noting, but it ought to remind us that we -- even 90 per cent of people can be fooled. Depending on the circumstances, statistics can be meaningless to an argument; under ordinary circumstances, statistics can be used, but it is actually a logical fallacy to rely on them. Why? Because sometimes there is a perceptual reason a human or animal does not know of or cannot process something the right way easily. We are all familiar with what are called "optical illusions". Do we understand how they work? Do we understand why we are subject to higher-level mistakes in our processing in the brain?

Personal aides were fooled by Stalin's 4 doubles (including a man 25-30 years younger, named Dadaev), and very different persons, even in immediate switches can fool people. They put the wrong impression memory onto the event: this is done using an interposed picture in a mini video document, which is worth watching.

 "Person swap", a trick on us, by Derren Brown. Video here.

Here is Stalin's double.

But the fact that people knowing a similar man can often assume he is the same, is why we might want to note that it can happen that people see what they assume when two people are close in looks. And with something to even out the chin -- not miracles, but some plastic surgery, the similarity would be greater.

If you do not know, the double is on the left and Stalin is on the right.

We will discuss this case further, below, with the references. Dadaev and Stalin. It was rumoured for years but only now was officially confirmed. Dadaev, left, in his 40s, but he started in his 20s.  This fooled Stalin's closest aides, not merely the general public. Would it fool you? Could you be sure it would not?

Current plastic surgery would not work pure miracles on Dadaev, if it had been available, but he fooled many, nevertheless. And if the chin had been able to be evened out, a slight tuck in the eyebrow skin done, a slight thinning of the nose? Then only the bone structure proportions and the ear cartilage would remain (and teeth) to tell formally. Just in case it is worth knowing about Sir Paul McCartney's head shape, we mention all this here.

Now that his role is officially acknowledged, he pointed out that his ears were what he considered most different. Do you think you would notice this? Would you argue him as the same anyway? If a bump could have been added a bit to his upper nose and his chin evened out, would you not think it possible it was Stalin, not his double? He said learning movements which sort of mimicked Stalin was key. He did not have to be perfect or exact and people thought he was.

Could you say for sure that you, reader, would not argue with Dadaev as Stalin? Are you sure? Or get stuck in arguing, instead of concluding? He fooled the closest aides, as he was. His ears were a bit too small, he mentions, but no-one noticed that. His manners, he said, were even more important than looks.

If there is a trick and we are not told, it will not be jaw-droppingly intriguing until we see some indication that there was a trick at all!

Suspicion is a large part of starting to notice. This does not mean there is always a trick, but if there is one, it is how to notice.

Darcy Oake's trick, for "Britain's Got Talent" TV show about magicians. If you did not know it was impossible naturally, would you become convinced it was an act of alternate physics or God? Probably so. Video here.

If we have any clues to a death of Paul, clues which have to be planted in Beatles material, because they are physically impossible otherwise, so they cannot be merely figments of people's imagination, we have the beginnings of a case. It does not mean Paul died -- not to us, yet, though again, it may in fact, existentially mean he did die, but that is what we are determining.

If there are constellations of references given self-evidently in a theme (explicit thematics), this bolsters the idea that he died. The idea itself that Paul died crops up as a possibility worth noting, not a crazy idea thus far. And yes, though it has been said before, a moment ago, we will repeat the fact that none of this means, mentally anyway, that Paul died, but it is all worth noting as a new possibility for us.

We know so much about the Beatles. We think we have every week accounted for. But have some gaps been filled in wrongly by biographers? Have we missed something? Probably not, we can say at the outset. But what if we did? Should we ask?

Paul does not have to have died for us to think the elements through from that perspective, back and forth with the doubter perspective.

Sadly, a lot of the meat of the argument, the so-desired evidence amassing, will have to be spread out between the arguments themselves. This is like in a court case, where details are delved into, then summaries and reprimands given to the jury, or to an advocate (a lawyer, usually), throughout the process.

Lots of evidence will be shown about the claim that Paul may have died and been replaced, but only argument can show how it could be taken seriously or not. 

And one of the things holding us back from bothering will be misconceptions different people have about argument and evidence: what they are and are not. They are always, if we feel we want to demean them, a "story" and facts which have only a "what if" value, no matter what they have as a real-world value.

So, for example: there is a drawing. However, its meaning, even its basic subject  have to be argued. This is the same with blood on a wall: there is blood (let us say), or at least we have tested that and trusted the test -- already levels where there can be doubt -- but anyway, the meaning of the blood for the case puts it into the "what if" level of thinking: what if there was a murder; what if someone fell; what if a person had a desire to see blood ooze, and on and on.

Usually we do not bother to ask all the possibilities from one item, but if the item is in a context, such as that a person does not usually draw anything like the item and there are other items which have given rise to a suggestion of what is in the drawing already -- or the blood we mentioned a moment ago usually would not be found in that place or with certain other objects around -- then we might bother to ask all the possibilities from one item.

Or, rather, the item is no longer alone; it is a catalyst to our action after a comparison was made by noticing other items, which became catalysts. So, we have a rumour that Paul died and some items amassed in that field. Or we have a bunch of knives scattered. Then we notice the drawing (or some other item which impresses us), or we notice the blood near knives. At that point we leap to at least one connective conclusion, and pursue it or do not, but we usually would leap to some possible connection between them.

Sometimes these possibilities do not work out, or work out the way we thought, or we simply do not pursue them.

But if we do, and the possibility does work out in some way -- maybe through twists and turns of argument led by evidence whose significance of connection is first created in the mind as a possible recognition of real events we can test for a connection, in the same way we started -- anyway, if the possibility does work out in some way, we have solved, discovered, and won a case, even if only to ourselves.

Small wins such as these occur all day, every day, when one's mind uses past comparative information to guess at what things mean, test it, have success in identifying what was going on. Sometimes we are called on to make more complex assessments. Sometimes we have to do jury duty and think through a very complex set of things to make assessments. The simplest argument does not win unless it explains all the complexities in all details, without excusing itself without explaining why it ever missed something the other points out, and, as well, it must treat fully why the other argument's flaws occur.

Paul McCartney does not have to have died and been replaced in order to consider the argument for it and against it. We can learn about the evidence amassed by people who are roughly or fully convinced of that argument, without having to agree, unless we actually find ourselves changed by the argument, which occurs in court sometimes, after all aspects of an argument are heard: context around the case, circumstance within the case, and details of specific items inside the context of the case.

Does one discuss the evidence for one side or another without comment on what people may feel as they encounter the details and logical connections and even informed speculative explanations along the way, or does one include helpful indications of sympathy, though these interrupt the argument?

Does one discuss what argument is, that is, what the nature of evidential fact is, how it is not necessarily actually, existentially evidence of anything, just as a clue is actually a potential clue, really, until a case is decided one way or another, or does one simply amass facts and let people react?

Does one hit hard, discuss the bottom line right away, where the reader might balk at the not-yet-detailed aspects of the argument, or does one ease the reader into complexities, where the reader might well react improperly at any stage, before conceiving the whole?

When a side is fully worked out, then, if the jury has patience, the jury's initial impressions of what they thought had to be true are at least more informed with a different perspective. At that point, the decision can be made, sometimes, as to which side wins the argument.

And of course, even when a side is decided, there can be doubt. Not all cases are decidable at all, while even those which are, are technically speaking, formally, philosophically speaking "doubtable", though some have no good reason to doubt them, unless some so-called act of God or completely unknown element came into the picture. But all items we decide at one degree removed from an event are considered inductively reasoned: though the event occurred or did not, we have to make a decision, if possible, about it. We were not at the event itself, in these cases, so we have to reason about them. Mistakes are possible. This is the real world, no matter how weird things may seem at first within it; only mathematics, with pre-set definitions for each number as a concept, can be reasoned about as "absolute", strictly speaking. Mathematical reasoning, when confined to meanings within math, not applied to the real world, is called "deductive reasoning". Nothing in court is like that, though we may talk of "really knowing" something.

What we mean in that instance is that we know how we know, how thoroughly we have been careful with each piece of reasoning or not (resistance emotionally is insufficient), and what kinds of things would have to change for our judgment to change.

Thus, Paul McCartney's putative death is an issue which can be reasoned about, though it can seem silly at the outset even to wonder.

However, even the slightest hint of something odd would, strictly speaking, force the person who is completely intellectually honest and had the time and power to investigate, to conduct some initial intellectual forays into what might be, and what to look for to confirm or deny each whiff of strangeness.

Yes, even a whiff of strangeness could deceive us, and things could be just fine instead. But with each "what if" potential, a case of details may emerge which strengthen the possibility that the strangeness was the correct interpretation.

With a lot of possibilities, sometimes complex probabilities occur as revealed. Probabilities change as informed opinion develops. And sometimes probabilities then suggest what we may look for as what are colloquially termed "proof" in a more direct sense; a warrant may be issued by police, for example, at any stage in their argument, and each time, "proof" is sought for each line of possible or probable "what if" kinds of considerations.

Even with all of that, so many layers, so many hypotheses and sub-hypotheses, a case may be judged inadequate and thrown out, even in an honest courtroom.

The public's attitude in the area of possible cover-ups is not even always so honest; yet the public must be more honest than the courts or media persons are being, when the courts or media persons do not take on the question at hand. If there is a cover-up, the public must be the court and honest media person, itself.

Of course, if there is a trick, a coverup, it will be done so that at first, or forever on the surface, it will seem as if it were real. However, reasoning to the best explanation of all the evidence available, may show that a trick was done, in some cases.

We will not assume Paul died or did not die. We will, however, look at what is available about the idea, and see if there is an explanation which fits it all including in detail, as distinct from suggesting in over simplicity that this has to be from the public alone (and in fact, we will find direct evidence it is not, for some reason, from the public alone), or that it has to be a hoax just because we wish it were.

Occam's Razor of argument states, basically, that one ought not to hold explanations which needlessly complicate the ultimate explanatory theory one holds, if all items can be explained by a simpler theory just as thoroughly, with nothing left out, even in detail and also in combination. Occam's Razor does not indicate that complications are always improper to posit and hold.

In other words, one does not always choose the intellectually or emotionally simpler option between arguments. It is only if the two options are equally explanatory of all aspects of the evidence, given the new perspectives each might afford the listener.

So, in the process of learning the very special "what ifs" and informed "maybes" (more technically termed argument and evidence), the listener might be able to think through some contextual explanations which had not occurred to that listener in the particular case before, or at all. As such, they might see details which one side or another misses, glosses over, as far more detailed and rich, and find that the formerly acceptable, even simpler explanation, no longer can fit that evidence. And as such, the simpler-seeming explanation is judged in fact wrong, though if there were a simple explanation which accounted for those details over an even more complex theory, then that would be fine to choose -- unless it, too, missed other details, and so on.

In other words, sometimes a cigar is a cigar, but in positing that it might not be and looking for details, one might indeed not merely think it is not a cigar, but find some new details which indicate to you that it is not.

You might be wrong, but if you resist briefly prejudicing yourself enough toward an idea not to see what it would look like, what it would need to be true, you might misconstrue and gloss over certain connections which become heightened when thinking from the other point of view.

Then you go back to the previous one and truly consider if it showed you the details correctly. Sometimes only one perspective actually acknowledges things which are, patently, in front of you, while the other simply states incredulity and does not handle details in some area.

In fact, if evidence shows that something was very much a trick, fooling almost everyone upon first assessment, as Sherlock Holmes novels show so well, then indeed, complicated processes may indeed need to be thought through, if something even seems "fishy" to some people, or questionable, just in case the item actually is problematic.

Some people have found a questionable aspect in materials related to the idea that Paul McCartney now is the same real man as the person named Paul McCartney before the end of 1966.

Why do they think that? They may be wrong, or worse, crazy, but maybe there are some interesting things they base their conception on. We will be presenting those things, fully aware of Occam's Razor, properly applied to all the evidence, to determine if the seemingly simple idea that Sir Paul now is the same as Paul before late 1966, is the right one. Maybe -- almost certainly, one says at the outset, of course -- it is the same man.

Though Paul does not have to have died and been replaced to make the following statement, it is worth mentioning:
Occam's Razor would also apply if a simple summary idea, but based on complexities, shows that Paul now is not the same actual man as Paul before late 1966.

Occam's Razor is not a simplistic thing. It does not mean choosing simple hypotheses alone.

It means that if all details of evidence and all reasoned links between them can be accounted for by different hypotheses and the explanatory theories from them, only then, between those theories, one chooses the simplest among those.

Courts also face such situations, where impressions widely held are proved to be likely wrong and are judged to be wrong, though the arguments are complex and require informed speculation in some parts.

And if that is so, it is decided in a formal process but still in the philosophically tentative sense of "inductive reasoning".

"Beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean beyond all reasoning, but what feels more reasonable given the arguments: their detail, their informed speculative links and the new perspectives gained by the jury along the way.

And always, if new information of specific kinds, in each case, became available in areas specific to each case's key arguments, then the judgment could be re-opened, or even revoked.

Another thing that also comes up when people read through an argument which goes into possibilities they do not think are real, can be real or want to be real, is that when pieces of evidence are amassed for or against a position, sometimes the explanation for the informed speculation about them in turn does not have further direct evidence available. For example, if someone finds blood at a death scene, otherwise looking as if it were a suicide, and the splatter may indicate someone had to be tall who killed them, that at that point, and maybe forever, the suspect cannot be found. But the idea that there has to be someone tall who did it is a fine hypothesis.

If someone says that this is "magical thinking" because it does not have other direct evidence for it, they are wrong. A person may think that superficial impressions are fine, and get angry that what is "obvious" may not be the truth, and that someone saying "we do not have a specific culprit" is engaging in "magical thinking" to posit that there has to be some murderer, but unknown in exactly who it is, with no evidence yet, or ever, for who it would be.

Moreover, to say the police has no way of knowing what the motives might be, just because there is no direct way of knowing, is not always true. There can be very good ways of knowing likely motives in some situations.

That is not "magic thinking", but rather, hypothesis about more than the evidence directly shows from, say, the blood. It means using evidence of context from the dead person's life, personality, prospects, career, or whatever.

Some ugly things are done in public, some in private. Some assassinations are done in private, some in public. People miss evidence in private events, and tend to be incredulous that something public would work. This only makes it more likely that if such an event had any sloppiness which could be noticed, once one bothers to wonder, that many people would not notice or wonder, specifically because it was done in public where such sloppiness would be possible to notice (if one bothered)!

None of this means on its own, or specific to a certain case, that something happened or did not, and in this case that Paul died or did not; but it provides the context in which we may ask if our initial impressions are even able to be questioned! We would only question our impressions if there is some kind of thing suggesting a ruse was involved.

This is called due diligence, or a "field search" of what may be, and is done with even the slightest indication in a proper police search. Nothing is guaranteed to be found and clues during the process may turn out to be not, existentially speaking, real clues we would call clues in the end.

Do things which look fishy make you ask questions, though an initially strange-seeming item may not turn out to be so strange? Are you willing to ask about contexts which you might find connect but might find mistaken? Are you willing to consider initially very strange ideas and say what if they were true, what would we find and where would we look? Are you willing to think you may be wrong about something in ways which initially seem so deep they are impossible, but might turn out to have worked in ways you did not think they did?

This is required if thinking about an issue you do not think is worth thinking about, but which you choose to take on for a time.

Is there nothing to the rumour at all? Maybe it was all a joke, a sustained and unkind joke? When upset, John could be sarcastic and a practical joker but in general that comes from disappointment and in him, that can be seen in his brief temper and occasional nasty jokes. Yet he repeatedly demonstrated that he always hoped to be kind, and contained his anger many times, and his anger or unkindness was fleeting.

Was the idea of a secret sadness put out by the Beatles to make money, or, because the sadness supposedly deals with grisly content, could it be an idea of some kind of mythic ideal of transforming oneself through drugs or grief?

Is there a simple and nice answer, or a simple and ugly answer? Or is the answer complex before it gets simple? Anyway, which way does it go?

Should we ask? And if we do, how can we know what answer to give, beyond our impressions about Paul McCartney as one man or as two? That is, is Sir Paul McCartney a replaced Beatle, a double, a new friend and bandmate? Would we have to be crazy or stupid just to ask properly if we can be fooled?

"How to ask a question" image of Chinese proverb: "A person who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. A person who does not ask a question remains a fool forever." Cached here, from site here.

Would a replacement of a famous Beatle, such as Paul McCartney have to look exactly and play and sing exactly like the real person? And can our perceptions be just a bit off, but enough that our overall impression is very off?

John Lennon songs with strange death-like imagery in them, compared to the new so-called "Paul is Dead" clue of this article's title: an anatomically accurate drawing of severely smashed head on a dead Beatle, also by John Lennon, privately, and not for any publicity. Image by author.

Our minds can think awful thoughts, which need not be true -- at least not just because we thought them through.

A very famous rumour exists that Paul McCartney of the Beatles died and was replaced, sort of secretly, with a new bandmate, now knighted as Sir Paul McCartney. The rumour was very famous in 1969-1970 and forward for a few years, especially in the USA. It is often assumed to have been made up in the public itself, and in the USA geographically, in 1969.

"Idiocy. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Is that what we have in this case? -- Image from here.

What kinds of things will we find, if this rumour was not made up by some assumedly drug-crazed people in late 1969? Some think, of course, that the Beatles did start the rumour at some point, but as a joke or metaphor of personal transformation.

John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr of the Beatles, pictured together before late 1966, when a famous rumour states that Paul died and was replaced covertly. Though this image is from before the putative switch, it serves to show the supposedly 3 remaining Beatles together without Paul and without the supposedly new 5th Beatle who became Paul in our minds, according to the rumour. Ringo and George are having fun for one photo, wearing glasses to mimic John's necessary glasses. No such gag (joke) continued for long between these friends except, if it was a joke, the rumour of Paul's death. Image from here.

We will not approach the problem as if Paul had to have died; we will work through the material on both sides of the issue -- and correct some assumptions that people have made about the history of the rumour itself.

Even if Paul did not die and was not replaced with the man we now know as Sir Paul McCartney:

Emilio Lari, photographer of "Help!" movie has come out to say he heard Paul had died, when he was in London in late 1966. Also, the first reference to the rumour was in print, in Beatles Book fan magazine, February 1967, as a disclaimer -- was it a nervous disclaimer? 4 so-called clues, or references, were planted in Beatles' material for sure, and many more can be shown to be there through tight thematics, except some likely mistakes over time. John drew Paul dead, accurately, with smashed headwounds, privately, which is the new so-called Paul is Dead clue of our title.

One instance of someone in the Beatles' circle telling us that Paul died, even if it is a lie, is found in a very formal situation. The situation alone suggests the story may have validity. The telling -- or bizarre rumourmongering -- in this case, remains cryptic nevertheless, but comes from the Beatles' longtime friend and music producer at EMI, the now-knighted Sir George Martin.

The now-knighted Sir George Martin (second from left), producer of the Beatles at EMI Studios, in London. He is posed with the young Beatles. Image from here.

We will show the drawing in a moment, after a bit more introduction, but first let us show Sir George Martin's Coat of Arms, which when all is considered, also shows Paul McCartney as having died and a fifth Beatle brought in to take his place secretly, for some reason. Why?

Sir George Martin, long-time producer and musical advisor and friend to the Beatles was knighted in 1996 and awarded a heraldic Coat of Arms in 2004.

Here is the Coat of Arms:

Image from here.

Sir George Martin's odd coat of arms shows only three (3) Beatles as beetles. To be exact, they are stag beetles (a male-oriented name, of course). Martin has claimed that his coat of arms shows only three Beatles (as beetles) because he was showing the three Beatles metaphorically, from after John died, but alive in 2004 when the Coat of Arms was awarded.

This is possibly one meaning of the three beetles, of course. But if that were all, then Martin is in effect naming only George Harrison, Ringo Starr and Sir Paul McCartney (also knighted by then). If this is the only interpretation, then he is leaving out John Lennon. To leave out John Lennon forever would be strange, and also strange would be to memorialize only the specific state of things as of 2004, for all of George Martin's future heirs. For example, what if George had also died by a second assassination attempt? Or Ringo or Sir Paul had later?

Perhaps there is a dual meaning to the three beetles as Beatles. Perhaps Sir Paul, Ringo and George are there as one reading, but that John, George and Ringo with no Paul is another meaning. How so?

On the Coat of Arms is also a white tire-tread type of shape through the middle. It has five (5) lines, like musical lines, but also -- could it be 5 Beatles shown together?

Given that there is a rumour, usually taken as a joke, that Paul had died and been replaced with the man now called Sir Paul, would the 3 Beetles then also stand for John, George and Ringo and the method of death in the rumoured death for Paul himself be memorialized in the white shape? If so, and Paul did not die and was not replaced, it would seem strange, would it not, that a joke be memorialized on the Coat of Arms? And yet if Paul died, would it not be fitting, to memorialize the 3 Beatles post Paul, the 3 Beatles post John, the 5 total and the manner of death for Paul as the 4th of the original Beatles, in a total of 5? Indeed it would.

Also, the Beatles' producer, the now-knighted Sir George Martin's, formal coat of arms shows the long-discussed method of death (a tire tread from a car impact) and 3 beetles for 3 Beatles on it, for whatever reason -- and we will cover some details about these things, too, of course. Forensic analysts and also ear analysis shows there are different men, if correct, which would mean many people's impressions are just a little bit "off" all over the face and voice, which would maybe seem impossible, but in fact it is possible, if not immediately seeming probable.

In other words, it may be wrong to think Paul was replaced, but it would not be absolutely nuts, crackers, wacko, at least for people who went by things such as were just mentioned.


Damn. Do we feel defeated that Paul could so far be considered replaced and dead by a car accident? No, because maybe there is plenty to prove he was not. Image from here.

So even if Paul did not die and was not replaced:

the case for Paul's death, or at least about a long-time rumour, from England, only getting formally known in the press in 1969, is far from what you might think.Yet, who is the supposed replacement, if he is one? What if we can never know exactly, because of thorough coverup of that aspect? Would that mean he is not replaced and knowably so from other arguments? No, we could never know his background and maybe determine if he was or was not the original Paul as most of us assume him to be, but let us start along with merely the issue of whether we could ever have been fooled -- even if, as most people hope and think, we were not in fact fooled.

Johnny Lennon playing dead in front of his own famous "psychedelic" Rolls Royce, circa 1967-68. Maybe he is just having fun. Some people do this kind of thing as a joke. Image from here.

It seems like we are challenging our own sense of what people are, what our virtual (imagined) lovers or friends, maybe are, if we think about this rumour for long -- for the Beatles sing in our ears and smile as if at us, their audience, even now, and it seems like what their faces are or are not, if we take the rumour seriously from the outset. This rumour's content of course is probably crazy for us to even bother to challenge, but even if it turns out to be crazy, we can think about it.

To take seriously a study of the rumour, maybe is all right, if we recognize that any idea can be considered in a serious manner, even if it is not a serious probability. In other words, out of curiosity about how anyone could think it might be true, or even how someone be so wrong or crazy as to wonder about it, maybe we can take the study itself seriously, not think when we start, that the claim that Paul died is a likelihood.

What would be the first thing to ask? We could ask, probably, two things, if we knew first that brains can trick themselves sometimes, which we will also cover below, though, in more detail, just to show there is no impediment from that aspect of life, to our having been fooled, though of course we may not be fooled in this instance. Of course, not all tricks are pure optical problems in the eye; some are processing problems for the brain. Studies have shown that resistance to certain ideas also makes it harder for us to assess if there is a trick going on.

Try to say the colour only, for each word. (For foreign-language speakers using machine translators to read this article, note that the words are for colours which they are not written in, so "yellow", the word, is written in green, etc.) Image from here.

Are the horizontal lines parallel or do they slope and change? Image from here.

We should probably ask the two things alternately:

1. If we even think about the rumour that he died, what would we find if we actually look, that is, bother to look at the rumour as not true and, in turn, true? We would be asking in what kinds of situations would Paul be able or unable to have died and be replaced, with what kinds of excuses made for each thing, and with what sorts of detailed links of ideas in these items, which we can call clues or possible biographical gaps. A jury must do this for both sides of a presented case, also known as the two cases about a given case issue, even if they find it is not likely to be one side or the other. In some cases, there is no decision at all (a hung jury, so to speak). But even a decision is not of true certainty, and is rather a decision of most likelihood, given full and proper information about the issue.

2. If we even think about the case, are we prepared to be called a nutcase for even having looked into the issue as if it could ever have merit, as some juries have to face in contentious (in socially "controversial") cases, and most especially, how prepared are we to be called a nutcase if we could ever, probably almost unthinkably, conclude in the end, that he died in highly likely fact, since nothing in a real-world, non-mathematical argument, is certain? Juries do, sometimes, have to face repercussions for being picked as "undecided" to start with, when the public is generally certain of what happened before a court case is held, and sometimes these juries face even more repercussions for coming to a conclusion against the public opinion -- even though no decision made on a real-world event is certain.

Let us write mostly about the first set of things, the "what if" aspects of the rumour and its content, for it is the case itself, no matter what side of argument we take about it all: that it is true or not. The questions of what may have happened must be considered, from the evidence amassed on both sides, helps us formulate whether something did or did not happen, without prejudice that it did not or did happen.

As we go, we will leave the reader to ask the second question about the reader's own feelings of being or being called crazy, though the likely implied feelings of craziness will be acknowledged repeatedly for those who need the encouragement. For this case does have political-social value if true, and is intellectually an interesting case even if it turns out to be totally invalid, for example, if the Beatles did not even definitely refer to the idea itself that Paul died.

Unfortunately, though, as was mentioned above, the idea that the rumour came from the public in 1969 in the USA will be easily shown to be wrong. In summary, about that issue, let it be known to you, reader, right now, that for whatever reason, the Beatles left at least four items which are not merely thematically likely to be about the idea of a Paul death, but are in fact four forensically provable items which have to be about the idea. One item, we mentioned, talks of the basics of the later famous rumour, in print, in February 1967, mentioning a rumour of death, Paul, a car crash and London area, albeit in a disclaimer, denying these things are real. The date of this disclaimed supposed rumour, however, is different than other indications have it. That would have to be explained, for example as a deflection. Maybe the print item is a joke.

But then we find, as we said, that Emilio Lari, photographer from the earlier Beatles film "Help!", has said that he has personal knowledge of a rumour earlier, the one the Beatles Book is therefore actually seeking to disclaim. He says he heard of this idea of Paul's death in late 1966 in London.

In addition, the rumour, started by the Beatles or not, is now testified about, from as early as late 1966 in England, in London. Who started that rumour then is not knowable from the testimony, but here is the information on the rumour's very early existence.

Did anybody talk of this rumour or has anybody come forward about the issue? We will get to that for the inner circle, but one person now on record is the Greek photographer, Emilio Lari, who was on the set of the Beatles' film "Help!" with the putatively original 4 famous Beatles, John, George, Ringo and supposedly a different Paul McCartney than we have now.

Let us start with the testimony from Lari. His is not the only testament to an unofficial change in personnel for Paul's role in the Beatles, is, at least, recent and contains his personal surety about one thing: the rumour already existed in late 1966 in London in the Beatles' wider circle, such as he was in.

He states below that he personally heard the rumour in London in late 1966 already. The personal testimony of Lari is at 1:19-1:28, but is mixed with other things before and after the relevant segment of the video. Please skip to 1:19-1:28 for the piece we are discussing here, because until we have gone through much else, the rest will not make sense in the video to you, dear reader.

Lari says, below, "I was in London in 1966, and somebody told us that Paul McCartney was dead in a car crash on the M1 [highway]". Whether the rumour was accurate about the location of the crash, if it was real, is another matter. There are several indications that there was a rumour that early, but never, to this article's author's knowledge, has it been attested in a direct interview before, and is attested to by Lari here, below:

 Link from here.

This clip of Lari is, as was mentioned above, mixed with other items.

Lari states personal knowledge in that clip, at least about the rumour's being already in London in 1966. He is not the only person to have stated that there was such a rumour then, but he is the only person on record stating firsthand knowledge of that rumour.

The fuller interview, still a bit edited and minus the definitely personal testimony clip above, is also posted for the public now. These interviews were conducted for a researcher nicknaming himself "Iamaphoney", a pseudonym implying that Sir Paul is a phoney and not the real Paul McCartney. Whatever the case with Paul and Sir Paul in time periods or actual identity, the statements of Lari below are not enough to establish his personal or second-hand knowledge directly from first-hand sources for his statements. However, Lari clearly is of the conviction that Paul died and if subpoenaed, he could tell us just where he gets each claim he makes. Only his statement about personally hearing the rumour in London in late 1966 is, however, at the time of the writing of this article, a statement which is self-evidently supported, unless he is lying about that.

Link from here but original, without subtitles, is here.

Again, other than his personal knowledge claim, that is, that he heard a rumour in late 1966 of Paul's death, his other statements do not have that value yet. Yet there is some value in listening to the interview overall. It does show at least that someone close to the Beatles and with a trained eye and who may have heard of or knew of more information, which he suggests he does, has indeed come out and talked of his conviction that Sir Paul is not Paul McCartney of the true McCartney family line. The value is not in giving direct evidence for the case. If he were subpoenaed, let us say, then more would be said, one can presume, and he would have to give his full knowledge or what he has heard, for the rest of us to know at least that much. But one cannot know for sure from this interview alone whether Paul died and was replaced.

Anyway, that these things are facts does not definitely indicate to us why they are so, and maybe even Lari's rumour hearing was a joke or a lie, but the claim is made, and the item in print does identify the Beatles as part of the process of mentioning this rumour idea overtly, for whatever reason.


Why? (A person begging for answers, melodramatically or in real distress.) Image from here.

If mentioning the idea of a death of Paul -- even denying it very early by name -- was done by the Beatles for a reason other than that Paul died, such as that it was not their own rumour to start with, or it was a hoax or joke or metaphor of death, still, it was done early and provably separate from thematic arguments.

If the public was duped, it was, therefore, at least not about no rumour at all, and moreover, we will see that they had received the idea from earlier, and, from February 1967, at least, they got it from the Beatles themselves, in print. From the Beatles or not, we will also find quickly that the actual rumour was -- for whatever reason and started by whomever -- already in existence in London in late 1966.

One might say that already the case is maybe interesting! Or one might say that this is leading to maybe having to say that Paul died and because it feels impossible, the feeling that an early rumour requires Paul's real death must be ignored right away.

The press and biographies we will mention here, could be confused as most of us are, if there were somehow, so unlikely, a switch. Some might be able to know and lie outright, too, or know and stay silent, in the Beatles' circle or in the press, but that fact does not have to mean he died.

"We both reached for the gun", song from the play "Chicago", in the film of the same name (2002). The characters set up a seemingly plausible story for the press; after some mistakes where they are almost noticed in their lies, the plausible story gets going with falseness woven in. Film clip from here.

But of course, Paul could have not died -- thank Goodness -- and there could still be an early rumour.

Or, if he had died, he could have died and many people not be able to think through and see some trick, if it were not only done well enough, but also if they really would not think to take it seriously and learn about it or compare the heads carefully. Let us just put those things in our mind for a bit, calm down and learn about the point made above, which is:

what would we find if he did die and what would we find if he did not? Paul does not have to have died for us to do this.

Thank goodness!

Is it not wonderful that though our minds can think awful thoughts, they need not be true -- at least not just because we thought them?

Thank goodness! "Oh that cheese looks delicious! Thank goodness Rodney went first. Now I can enjoy a lovely dinner." -- Is it not wonderful that though our minds can think awful thoughts, they need not be true? Image from here.

As much as maybe many people in the public might have been duped by a strange idea that Paul died, in principle the rest of the public are the potential jury of ideas, and must decide, one by one, whether the others were duped or not. We must be informed properly to do our job in figuring out how and why such duping could occur, or if it did occur. We ought to look at the issues about odd or seemingly impossibly silly ideas, in case some of them turn out only to have seemed to work one way and in fact worked another way which is not impossible.


John Lennon, leader of the Beatles rock band, at different ages.

This article will not "look" for problems with the Beatles rock band's member, Sir Paul McCartney's, identity without considering how there might be no problem at all, that is, this article will not be prejudiced in some assumed way for or against the idea that Sir Paul McCartney is the same man as Paul McCartney of pre-late 1966.

This article will discuss the rumour's own history, as well as the possibility that we can be tricked in ways which allow for different people to fool us as to who they are (often called "doubles"), and whether many people could have been tricked in this case, about Sir Paul's real identity for so long. While we do our possibly ridiculous but certainly interesting investigation into the aspects of the rumour, we will need some way to refer to the putatively two men, from two time periods, in such a way that is respectful, whether the two time periods have one or two men as the famous Beatle figure of Paul McCartney.

Here is a quick illustration of the public's divided perception about Paul as being dead:

Left image: "Keep calm: Paul McCartney is not dead" from here. Right image: "Keep calm though the real Paul McCartney is dead" from here.

Note how the implied worry is different in each case: the lefthand position implies that people are nuts and irresponsibly worried. The righthand position implies that there is cause for worry in the ordinary sense of missing someone, but that the information can be absorbed and integrated.

The whole idea of Paul as dead seems serious to some, ludicrous to others, fun to some but not worth a real consideration. All of this is quite normal during true public delusions (mistakes or craziness), but also during true tricks, sleights of hand, coverups.

How could we really be sure we understand the people who say it is true, or might be true? Would we even care to ask about such supposedly obviously crazy ideas?

Some think the rumour was spread by the Beatles for various reasons. They do think the idea, then, existed in Beatles material in the form of so-called "clues" on records, on albums and in other places. For explanation of the supposed clues, they posit a cruel joke, a game to make money from renewing people's renewed interest in the band in 1969 or 1970, or a psychedelic metaphor of transitions in life. Are any of these rather morally unpleasant motives behind the rumour? Can we know if those are the best explanation, or are we left with a kind of cruel trick we can never figure out?

Batman movie-style Joker character, digital painting by unknown artist. Image from here.

Or is something else true: that the immorality of a lie was behind the rumour, but a lie about a real death, the seemingly unthinkable option for most people, for two reasons.

1. It would seem at the outset of this hypothesis, to mean there was some cruelty on the part of the Beatles and their circle, to lie to the so-important public.

2. It would seem at the outset of this hypothesis, also to mean there was disrespect of Paul himself, in death.

But does the hypothesis and evidence amassed on its side rest on nothing and does such a possibility as Paul's death and a coverup really need to imply those two horrible things we just mentioned? We will discuss this, of course, just to know how such a thing might work, to know if it was possible for not only such an event as a death of Paul to occur and be covered up, but also done without malice, even if it was not done.

Why would we ask? Because the rumour has many interesting features to it, and it will make an interesting inquiry.

There are those who say that the rumour is true, and they point to many things to make their point. Often they are called the crazies or loonies (and they even make definite mistakes with some things), but are they basically right? Can we know if we have been fooled about Sir Paul McCartney's identity, after late 1966, even fooled not even necessarily maliciously?

If there is a trick in how we are supposed to think Sir Paul is Paul McCartney of the pre-late 1966 period, an argument showing that they are different would not necessarily be able to make the viewer or listener actually see or hear the trick exactly. An argument would have to show that the putative trick was possible, even likely or highly likely, and how it would work. In some cases, some direct evidence might be testable (such as DNA or fingerprints or an ear's difference, or facial features, or voice prints measured and described in certain ways), but even so, some people might not see or hear the putative trick directly.

And of course, if DNA and fingerprints are not available in such a trick, and tests on voices done with protocol maintained are currently unavailable, then arguments about an ear or facial features would have to do, along with the general case around the putative switch.

But again, even if such things show a trick is likely or sure, some people might not see or hear the difference in their own minds. We will discuss why this is the way our minds work, while we ask whether the famous rumour of Paul's death has any possible merit or not.

Again, this article will not "look" for problems with Sir Paul McCartney, that is, not be prejudiced in some assumed way. However, many people have a misconception of what hypothesis-making is:

All hypothesis develops from an idea, a notion. The notion may be already based on some item, called evidence by that side of the case. As more possibly related items are amassed and thought about, the idea becomes more fleshed out, a "story", but a story of explanation. If it is wrong, it should be determinable or close to determinable. If it is right, then that, too, should be mostly determinable. There is no certainty in the mathematical sense, in any inductive (real-world) logic. Theory is explanation, a story of explanation.

Evidence towards something or away from it often can be the same item, viewed or thought about through the different theories of the case, as the case builds on either side. Some pieces of evidence can only fit on one side or another, but even then, as "proof" of the case, they have to be shown to have a part in a logic. They do not exist on their own.

Very few types of evidence are even close to being only part of one side or another. Even, for example, the fact of blood being present at a scene, must be explained. So, testing for blood's presence at a scene can prove blood exists, but not what it means, not on its own. And of course, sometimes even the test itself is called into question; if that, too, is doubted, then it is doubted as being a valid test process or a situation where blood can accurately be told apart from other substances in a certain situation or even a lie by the people doing the test. But we digress.

The point is, really, that evidence itself can often be used for both sides, even if straining the meaning of the evidence. The often dual potential of meaning (the theory into which evidentiary fact might fit) is called ad hoc reasoning. Something often could be or could not be part of the argument on either side.

In spite of a few possible errors, the judgment we make in a court or informed court of public opinion must be whether there is a better explanation.

Incredulity alone is not acceptable as an argument. It is a fallacy to use incredulity as a part of argument, though it is perfectly acceptable to feel incredulity at times. What can seem to be impossible or highly unlikely can be true in some way, sometimes, in ways we did not know of, ways we did not realize were actually highly likely in a certain circumstance, and so on.

Thus, we have to inform our initial incredulity with a lot of "what if" considerations. We have to "work up" these ideas enough to know if they apply, in principle, to our case.

Only then, can we determine if in a particular case, we need to use them or they apply well at all.

In the process, we need to go back and forth. We do not need to stay with a conclusion (a hypothesis as a potential conclusion) for long each time, but we need to go into it, and often several times. This is not prejudice, not blanket acceptance, but it acts as if we were prejudiced toward or away from something.

This is what reasoning does, about the evidence presented.

We lead with the evidence on either side, sometimes the same item of evidence, but we alternate and build up arguments as we go, as well.

While letting individual items of possible significance be studied in depth, the mind must be compiling both sides of an issue. As such, the items are called evidence, and one does leap to conclusions, but on both sides, and back and forth. One does not merely look at items of evidence; one also reasons out from them, for all main possible lines of connection -- on both sides of a case. We will, therefore, seem "prejudiced" while doing the work, if we are stopped by someone while thinking of one side. We are not actually prejudiced, however: we are en route, in the middle of a trajectory, on one side or another.

Let us begin.

Photo of Salvador Dali, the artist, and cats and water caught in mid-jump, showing tendencies of where things might land. Image from here.

A jury may never be absolutely certain in their minds that something was a right judgment. Or a person may never see the trick of a magician as it occurs. But they can tell sometimes by other things that there was a trick, or there had to be a judgment made the way they did.

However, some people can actually see certain sleights of hand, or can conceive a judgment fully, in some cases. So, if you do not see and hear Paul McCartney before the end of 1966 as different than after, let us determine whether it is highly likely you are wrong or right, or if those who see and hear salient differences along with similarities, are the ones who are likely right or wrong.


The author of this article you are reading made a hard choice.

Because of the fact that most articles about the subject of this article are mere polemics, this author chose to arrange the material -- that is, in a sense, write the article -- about argument itself, using the case for and against truth in a rumour of Paul McCartney's death in 1966, to show it as an example of how to know whether one is crazy if one bothers to look at a claim that there is a trick and coverup which was not fully revealed in some area of life.

Even if the rumour is found to be merely a rumour, many inaccuracies about its contents and how it came to be famous in 1969 in the USA have been determined, and will be covered here, so that future works can at least represent the rumour's history properly. This article is not the only one to present accurate materials about the rumour, but the more articles which do it, the better, since the rumour is, itself, part of history, even if Paul can be shown properly not to have died and been replaced.

The title of the article you are reading refers to an anatomically accurate, private drawing John Lennon did of Paul McCartney as dead from serious headwounds. That he did this will be shown, but why is another matter, which also has to be discussed as we go. We will cover that and much more.

So, let us begin our inquiry into what is, at the outset at least, a very silly idea, an idea which seems, at first, like asking if Unicorns exist. But Unicorns can be shown very quickly and accurately to have almost no physical possibility; what we will find is that psychological trickery and some gaps in Beatles' official history of Paul do make this rumour at least, initially, hypothetically possible.

Image from here, from art page here.

But even for that, a case can be made; the issue with Unicorns as existing or not is an insufficient and even countered case, but is that true for all things we may assume to be similar to it, such as death for Paul McCartney in late 1966?

There are so many inaccuracies about the rumour itself in most of the materials referencing it, in books and films and Internet articles, such as how it came to the public's awareness, and what certain things occured within the years supposedly containing "clues" about Paul's death, that though there are also many uncertainties we will encounter, this article attempts to show more accuracy about the issue, even if we can show properly, outside of our personal conviction one way or another, that Paul did not die.

For one thing, the rumour can be shown to have been started long before the supposed 1969 USA brouhaha. In fact, it can be shown that the Beatles themselves mentioned it or created it at least from February 1967 onward, from a print mention of the idea of Paul's death in a Beatle magazine, the Beatles themselves can be said to propagate the rumour as an idea. We will cover this print mention later, and other definitely planted so-called clue items in Beatles' repertoire. In fact, there are four such definitely planted items. The rest are knowable through thematic considerations; and some famous so-called clues may be mistakes, as well.

Emilio Lari stated in the second, fuller interview clip above, that he is convinced Sir Paul is not Paul McCartney (the young man he knew). He talks of a fiery car crash. However, he does not know personally, or does not say so in the edited interview that he knows personally, about a death and replacement for McCartney. If it was somehow a hit on the street rather than in the car, he might not know that, or if it did not happen at all. However, he does add that there seems to be pressure from others, including Sir Paul to destroy or buy up old photos and other things and assumes that that is to cover it up.

There is also mention of a diary. Whose diary? There is one very excerpted diary we can read, from Mal Evans, Beatles roadie (one of two main roadies, ongoing close friends of the Beatles, the other being Neil Aspinall, who became the head of the Beatles' company, Apple Corps, later in his career.) Very few people have read that diary in full, and none of the general public has. The actual diary covers the whole period of his involvement with the Beatles, from the early 1960s to the end in 1970. Excerpts from the diary were published some time ago in the Sunday Times magazine, 20 March 2005, and also in the Times newspaper and archived at the link just provided and again, here. No-one has published the whole diary -- though it would be normal to have done so, which some people who are advocates that Paul died have pointed out in their favour -- and even the article from The Times about the diaries is only available in re-posted forms such as at the links above; the original link is no longer active, though perhaps in the archives it is there at this location.

The time period we will be mostly wondering about, in our explorations in this article, which is that of late 1966, is entirely left out of the excerpts from Mal's diary, along with some other periods.

There also exist a few pages available from a day journal by Sir Paul McCartney, from about 1970. A day journal is called a diary in the sense of its being a day-by-day calendar, but not a personal reverie written by oneself, which would be the other kind of diary, such as the one by Mal, mentioned above. Pages from Sir Paul's daytimer diary are shown in the movie "The Winged Beatle" (2010) and "Rotten Apple" series (2006-2010), by Iamaphoney. Is the diary mentioned by Lari Mal Evans' full diary or the day journal shown by Iamaphoney? If it is Mal's full diary, what is in that diary (for it was more complete than the 1970 journal)? The interview is edited down, so that certain things are concealed in what Lari said.

How much of what Lari says is mere speculation about Paul's supposed death? We cannot know, from these items individually. But we will discuss all the available main evidence around them and from them, on both sides of every issue raised.

So we now know there was a rumour in late 1966, unless Lari is lying about his personal knowledge on that point. We will need to know why there was a rumour, though -- that is the big question, of course -- and we will need to know more about the rumour's history as well.

Is this whole Paul is dead idea spread by the Beatles at all? In other words, why did the rumour start in late 1966? Was it for no good reason? Was it all a ruse by the Beatles, to be sinister, clever, metaphoric about personal change (death as symbolic change), or to make money, or some such thing? Or did it spread because of witnesses to the death or aware of the commotion in the Beatles' circle about Paul's real death, and then get spread in formal ways later by the Beatles for a certain admission of grief and shame, while attempting to continue with life as much as possible? Could that be?

Usually, to wonder how a coverup could be necessary in this way, would be unthinkably silly. But it is what we would have to consider, just in case we find evidence suggests there may have been a coverup.

At least it might be worth mentioning at this point, that no part of this work, this article you are reading is done in hate or resentment if the Beatles lied. In fact it is done in love for the Beatles as musicians and, in many ways, as people -- though the author knows that some reading this work will not be fans, but be merely curious about the issue of the famous rumour of Paul's death.

One way or another, they promoted at least a generally good message at times:

"Love is all you need" Beatles "Yellow Submarine" film poster, 1968. Image from here.

The article is also written in love for John Lennon, often a very feeling person, even if, in order to keep his band coherent in the public eye, he bowed out of public responsibility and helped agree to a lie, that Paul had not died. If John could lie or not like this will be discussed. Maybe he did not lie, but can we know?

Some say he could not lie to us, because he generally told many truths, personal ones and political ones (such as keeping the CIA's drug promotion and mind control programs in the public mind, even in his last interview). Some say he was such a jokester and dissociatedly malicious enough to concoct an extended lie about Paul's death and replacement and place creepy so-called "clues" in Beatles materials. However, due to his feeling nature, this article is written partly for him, in case he had some reason to mention Paul as dead. If he was doing a nasty joke with the others, at least maybe we can confirm that.

Remember, even if you do not see a trick as a trick, that is, if a double is used somewhere and you do not see the differences coherently, explain them correctly in your mind, certain things can indicate to you that you are not seeing, or hearing quite correctly. This does not mean there is a fairly similar man who is not Paul McCartney living as a fifth famous Beatle now, by the name of Sir Paul McCartney, but we will see that it is not impossible.

Given that there are four definitely planted references to the idea of Paul's death in Beatles' material, three of them long before 1969, when the rumour hit the USA press and radio -- which we will cover -- there was at least something real to the rumour. What the reality is, is another matter than that there is some reality to at least some so-called "clues" about a putative death of Paul McCartney. What is is could, at that initial stage of knowledge, be considered a cruel joke, metaphor or real death and cover-up, but there are four definitely planted references to the idea. Many people do not know this part of the rumour's history.

Image from here.

Why would the public want to know more about this rumour? If it is sure it knows already, then it may not want to know any more, but it may indeed wish to know more about the issue in another sense: out of interest, as an intellectual exercise in argument and accuracy, or even to be corrected in what it believes about how things work in reality, if we find they can ever differ from what we thought, or especially if they do in fact differ in this case.

The issue actually has some political, or social value, actually, also: for if the Beatles lied about this, what else can occur right under our noses? And what kinds of apparatuses would have to help them?

The article is not written to demean anyone for whatever they currently believe about this situation: that there were or were not no so-called Paul is Dead (PID) "clues" in Beatles material, or that there were or were not any reasons beyond a hoax, joke or metaphor for there being so-called "clues".

In other words, this author wishes you good luck in all your endeavours, including keeping calm and careful about this material; it can be frustrating or seemingly outrageous to consider it, for some people.

But accuracy is important, and history teaches us about ourselves, as does careful reasoning, if we take the time to bother with it, when we think we might not need to. For example, we might find that most of us were right in thinking Paul did not die. Is the venture a waste of time, if that is so? No, we would learn more about the rumour, more about what is possible -- and what is not possible.

Image from here.

In demonstration of the good intentions of posting this article, this author would like to mention that John Lennon's famous widow, Yoko Ono, followed my Twitter account the morning after someone maligned this blog to her, drawing someone in her company's attention to it. It is likely that she is endorsing at least the manner of the treatment of the subject here.

What on earth would this case about Paul's death, this side of an argument, this position involve, if -- again if -- it were true? Have any tentative arguments been put forward based on anything?

Indeed they have. We will work through some of the basic ones. No item will be treated as a proof on its own (except possibly forensic things, if and when we look at them), but while discussing each item we will have to argue about it and its context. Do not mistake that for ad hoc proof claims. On the other hand, when working through this case -- as in any case, actually -- we have to remember that if something seems shocking or could fit easily into one side or another, we have to let it do so. We cannot act as though, just because we could find an innocent explanation that that must be its explanation, until we reach the end of our evidence compilation.

"Caution" sign depicting accident from walking or being pushed in front of a vehicle. Image from here.

NOT the new so-called clue of Paul McCartney's death. ---- John Lennon, 1970s, with stethoscope directed to street in front of white VW Beetle car. Lennon went through a phase with his wife, Yoko Ono, of artistically listening for the metaphorical heartbeat of many objects and the real heartbeats of people. However, it seems that in context with other items, this image shows the putative Paul death as being related to some body part or whole body of Paul's ending up or hit on the street. ---- White cars running past or nearly running into Sir Paul's head after the putatively real death of another, original Paul McCartney, or white cars pictured in connection with putative clues of Paul's death, are quite common in Beatle art. On Abbey Road album, a Beetle car, seemingly symbolizing the homonym for "Beatle" is pictured, as well. It shows a "281F" license plate, which is famous as well. --- Sir George Martin's coat of arms pictures a tire tread which is white. The manner of death for Paul is often suggested in many ways as having been from a car crash, with a white car involved, if he died. This is not the new John Lennon so-called clue, however. Image by Yoko Ono, sourced from Webpage here.

This author hopes that the reader will stick to a cautious and open-minded attitude, as we work through circumstances (circumstantial arguments) and what forensic considerations we have at this point, to determine if there is a possibility or even a likelihood that Paul died, or to confirm, if possible, beyond so many people's perceptions, that Paul did not die and was not replaced.

The article is written to help people truly know if our general perceptions of sameness in Paul and Sir Paul have been correct. Maybe so many people's perception of Sir Paul as Paul is just fine, but of course, tricks can work on most people if the trick is right and the willingness in the person is high. No matter what, maybe we should ask about the case just to learn about it accurately, for history and for fun -- or maybe Paul died.


Image by author.

Reasonable doubt means what we feel and logically can determine is good reasoning. Calling something good reasoning means that it contains no logical fallacies and feeling that something is unreasonable should change if a person knows more about how something may have tricked them, even if in the end, for a specific case, one determines that no trick actually occurred. Sometimes something works in an unexpected way, however, in which case we have to be open to thinking through new information on what is reasonable in general about a specific case.

Sometimes what sounds reasonable is not, or what sounds unreasonable is. This is not always true, but it can be.

Ignorant-looking person (stereotype, sorry) saying a simple impression that something sounds right to him. "Yup, sounds about right to me." Image from here.


Image from here.


"Insane Sonic" by "LazyAsHell. Image from here.


Not that Paul has to have died for us to be fooled by our minds (not usually our actual eyes and ears), but can we be fooled and justify it afterward? Of course. We will show many instances of this.

If we want to get a grip on the Paul is dead issue, we have to begin with perceptual problems and categorizations we make.

How does a similarity between people occur, such that we think someone, briefly, is the same person as another? And if we were told they are the same, how can we get confused? Can we?

Mostly, we notice differences in the same person all the time. We just compare certain things about the person and keep them in the same category in our head. Some people have brain injury which harms this ability. But some kinds of similarity or difference can actually trick us, temporarily or permanently. We will see examples of this.

This article is written also for people who are not fans of the Beatles, though this author does love the Beatles' music and of course it is mostly many fans who will likely come to read this article.

Image from here.

The article is also written for the Beatles' friends and family who know directly whatever the truth of it all is and it is, of course, written for the Beatles (though John and George are dead, and, if PID advocates are correct, so is Paul), including Ringo and Sir Paul, whether the latter is found to be definitely Paul or not, and, as mentioned above, it is written for the public.

Are we going crazy and thinking Paul was replaced is like thinking our grandmother is a hat?

Bowler hat. Image from here.

What is going crazy? Can it be due to resistance to a fact?

Ramachandran wrote about brain injury and emotional confusion when people cannot conceive why reality is not matching their expectations. Freud (with emphasis on mental constructs) and then Janov (with emphasis on body and mind together) and others wrote about similar effects from emotional trauma memories or even fears in the now, which we connect with dangers we knew when we were more open, as children. What this means is that thoughts can flow as if rewired, where our brains allow certain thoughts to go through in wrong ways, and the results are similar to brain injury. Which way would that be, if we resist, extremely, the idea that we could ever be fooled about Paul McCartney? Indeed, we might not be fooled at all, but need we resist the concept itself and not look seriously? Surely, we can look closely at the issue from the opposite side we expect to be right, when we are at the beginning?

Zebra losing its stripes, saying, "I think it is stress" as the reason for going crazy. Image from here.

Did someone murder and replace our grandmother with a hat?
Are we crazy and only "seeing things"?
Is it some combination?


But this next one is real. It is a real boat. If someone just told you of the idea, it would depend how they described it, for you to say it is unreal or real, would it not?

Crazy idea but it works. Image from here.


Even if Paul was not replaced, it is worth noting something here about our emotional and literal processing of assumptions: they can be processed at several levels.

Some tricks seem to work "simply", but actually the brain compiles information and compares, so most illusions are not actually direct misunderstanding (misfiring) at the first cellular level of eye and ear, though some are.

Front cover of book by Al Seckel: "Hear Eye Fooled You: The World’s Best Optical and Auditory Illusions and the Science Behind Them" ("Here I fooled you: The World’s Best Optical and Auditory Illusions and the Science Behind Them"). Image from here.

Some things make this obvious: we assume a lot about our world. How about that everything runs along fine most of the time?

"Ha Ha! Fooled you! I reprogrammed the GPS to ignore the vet's [veterinatian's] office!!!!"Image from here, by "cheezburger".

Not that we have to think at this point that the Beatles and their crowd did for sure fool us, but the idea of it is worth an initial mention. We will get into this more later.

Is there a case for it?
And if there is a case -- a fairly strong one, enough to notice -- does that mean it is the correct case, the correct side of the argument?

The next image is presented in a kind of pretend conversation with the definitely original "Fab 4" Beatles. However, as was mentioned, this author is not leaving out an implied conversation with Sir Paul, if he is a different man, nor all the others around whatever the rumour means.

Beatles album with their two early songs, "From Me To You" and "Thank You Girl". Included here for effect, given the attempt this author (and others) are making to determine, as if "from us to the Beatles", what went on with the Paul is Dead idea, and further, as if they are thanking this author (and others) for whatever is said which is more accurate about the issue. Image from here. This seems to be from the 27 May 1963 release of the two songs as singles, though that may be another pressing.

This "girl" author is thus attempting an overview of the issue, whatever we may find, even if we find that there was some kind of cruel joke or, even worse, a death of Paul and a cover-up of it, with a fifth Beatle added, contributing material in his own right, with some talent of his own.

There are some men (including MikeyNL1038 on Youtube and Iamaphoney -- a pseudonym playing on the idea that Sir Paul is a phoney), whose work over the last few years has also brought the pro-Paul's death theme forward with insistence. There is another woman, Tina Foster, who has done a lot of work on this subject, from the point of view of surety that Paul died, but in her amassing much material and running forums on the subject (not the only forums on the subject), though there are some very unsupportable materials also contained in those. We will reference images and other things which she and others have compiled, linking to their work where appropriate.

Whatever the truth we assume at the outset of our inquiry here, in order to look at an issue, all the evidence must be considered, and evidence does not mean sure interpretation of factual items, but rather evidence means factual items considered to mean something or not mean something, using arguments about a likelihood of how to interpret them along the way, on either side of an argument.

Are we dealing with likelihoods, when all is considered, or impossibilities or simply unlikelihoods? All must be considered, so we can be sure of which one we are dealing with. We can never know certainty in any inductive, that is, real-world scenario, though we can sometimes come up with what we could call certainty. What will we find about the Paul's death rumour?

"Likely Impossibilities": is the death of Paul -- really, truly, with all things considered -- likely impossible or possibly likely or nearly certain one way or another? Image from blogsite name here.


Someone's simple idea of a headwound, almost a joke but still clearly not a joke. Image found here.

John Lennon photographic compilation: young, 20s, 30s. Image compilation found on

John Lennon, of the world-famous rock band, the Beatles, was usually a lovingly funny, caring, famous man, with a violent streak when defensive -- sometimes dangerously violent briefly -- but not a brooder on doing violence or watching it.

In the private drawing, not well known, John drew a young man violently dead, and very accurately injured, as it turns out. Why an accurately dead man in John Lennon's drawing would be depicted in a joke or in reality is another question, but that Paul is likely the person depicted in the drawing will become quite clear.

The drawing is grisly in some ways but anatomically rather clear. It has two telltale regions which will become particularly important when we discuss the drawing. These regions are the temple injury (which actually has implications for the bridge of the nose and eye regions, not shown in the image but shown in the drawing) and the ear injury, both counterintuitively on the side opposite to impact. These aspects, with other more general considerations, such as flattening of the head and the very top injuries, seem to indicate strongly that John actually saw a dead man with these images, in person or by photo. Who the image is of is a different question. Maybe the injuries show one dead man conflated with a live one, in clothing and other symbols, as a joke.

Before we determine even who is depicted or why there is a depiction of a death, we can remark right away, when we know some things about anatomy, that the injuries are likely from a real memory of some kind. John was not one to brood on death or to know much anatomy, and indeed his version, we will see later, is hardly very naturalistic (realistic) in its manner of showing the injuries, but the following is striking about the drawing he did:

his locations and movements of bone around the injuries are very naturalistic (realistic), as in, accurate. They are a good representation by someone who might have remembered salient aspects of what he saw and attempted to put them down in some general accurate impression from the outside, not from internal anatomical knowledge or with a photo-realistic style.

The injuries are as diagrammed below. Again, do not worry; we will cover the actual drawing and more detail about anatomical damage, and much more than the drawing.

1. Front view of normal head. 2. Rear view of normal head. 3. Impact direction: ---> (Grey) / Sometimes parietal bone shatters as well. (Yellow) / Bottom of temporal bone shifts and cuts lower ear, and pushes upwards. (Blue) 4. Top explodes and spills. (Yellow and light grey) / Frontal bone cuts skin. (Dark brown) / Temporal bone cuts skin and pushes lower ear outward. (Blue) 5. Impact direction: --> (Grey) 6. Location of gap noticeable at upper nose, under skin. (Pink and green) / Eyeball damage, dislocation and different eyelid effects, plus even complete dislocation of eye sometimes. (Grey) / Possibly mouth torn, revealing teeth. Swelling and bruising of cheeks. (Grey) / Ear flap torn upward. Below temple there is a cut wound and general dislocation of forehead. (Grey) / Open temple wound and general dislocation of forehead. (Grey) / Top open wound. (Grey) / Flat front top (Black) / Flat backward angle for brow (Black) / Flat side top (Black). / Yellow bars show directions of flat angles: one is frontal bone backwards, one is along the top of frontal bone, one is the collapse of the parietal structure. / Red arrows show areas of injury spillage and cuts by bone.                  Drawing by author.

It is a highly sympathetic treatment of a grisly death, the drawing John did. It shows symbols of love and seemingly of rebirth into heaven, a kind of resurrection in it, but the figure is no Jesus. Moreover, unfortunately, it is no offhand doodle, in any respect, though it is simple in some parts. It has sections with great detail and careful line work, as if he was thinking through carefully what he wished to put in the next section of the drawing. The injuries themselves are simplified in concept, but as was mentioned, actually the placement of the injuries is consistent with anatomical tendencies in a head smashed into a hard surface, as was mentioned above.

The young man figure also has many features which, along with other mentions of the subject in Beatle lore, for some reason, and though possibly done for a hoax or joke, which we will discuss as options, can nevertheless identify him as John's best friend and young bandmate, Paul McCartney, of the world-famous Beatles band, which Lennon started and stayed in to the end of the band's time together, in 1970. To go with this personal evocation of a grisly death, there is a rumour, which we will discuss, that Paul had died in the last quarter of 1966.

Why did John draw this? Is he perpetuating a silly hoax from the Beatles or perpetuating a rumour about the Beatles? If it relates to the rumour, was that rumour created unrelated to the Beatles themselves, or is he remembering a death of a friend privately? Can we know?

Here are a few features of the drawing, besides the anatomical bone dislocations shown in it.

John Lennon said "The Walrus was Paul" in a line from his song "Glass Onion" (1968). He had said, "I am the Walrus" in his song of the same name. Only the attribution of who the Walrus image is about is in question, for John wore a Walrus suit in a film (Magical Mystery Tour film, 1967). In "Come Together (Over Me)" (1969), John references many disgusting images, though the song is often taken to be making a sexual reference in the title. One of the song references is to a "Walrus gumboot" in context of other disgusting, even death imagery.

So what is one of the things in the drawing?

Dissheveled Beatle boots, possibly with broken ankles, judging by the dissociation in line work at the bottom of the lower legs. Image cropped John Lennon's drawing of an anatomically dead young man (drawn sometime between, likely, late 1966 and end of 1971, when it was given to a collector, who did not notice the death image was a death image). Ankles often break when people are hit on the street by a moving vehicle, or are inside a vehicle in a crash, or when they are pulled out.
The young Beatles, jumping in their Beatle gumboots, early 1960s.

One version of Beatle boot

"Beatle boots" are a type of short black leather boot with cuban heels (mid-level heels), popularized by the early Beatles after joining with Brian Epstein, and copied much in the early 1960s. A "gumboot" is a nickname for black leather boots.

Image by author.

The drawing's details and different songs' details could coincide here for no reason, or for a thematic reason, either done in a joke or metaphor, or for a thematic reason to represent a real death.

We will discuss how thematics work, and when they can and cannot likely be coincidental. Asking why a theme is present, however, is different than asking if it is present.

One more thing we might show already from the drawing, though it is not the head injury's anatomical bone accuracy, also in the drawing. Instead, right now, we will simply show that John did a very accurate portrayal of dead eyes in a damaged head:

Are these "ju-ju" eyeballs, or "wonky" or "weird" nonsense-name for googly eyes, dislocated and bruised, as mentioned in "Come Together (Over Me)"? They sure are. The one on our left stares out and down, in swollen partly dislocated lids. The one on our right is shriveled, popped or simply more normal sized in an also swollen lid, and stares up and to the right.

Sir Paul is "obviously" just joking around when he pulls this face, right?

Sir Paul McCartney pulling his face into a contortion. The exact date and photographer are not mentioned at the Beatles site where this image was grabbed from, here. The caption the author of that site wrote was "Paul McCartney has always had a light-hearted quality about him." Even if that is true, is this a light-heartedness about the death of the man who made Sir Paul a Beatle, for which he would be grateful but sometimes might feel even irreverent, or is it a solemn representation of the putative death? Either way, the person writing the caption has no context or might accept none, to show that whatever the emotions of Sir Paul in the photo, the actual content may not be a pure joke.

And in "A Day in the Life" film from 1967, though many people wore false noses for fun at the event, a bird flies off from fireworks or sparks during the first creepy crescendo (as if a spirit), while a particular image of a particular glasses-wearing man is flashed twide, once at the very climax:

At 2:06 minutes: the ever-repeated right-eye staring, left eye popped or closed. This image is flashed twice at the climax of the first scary crescendo, in Day in the Life, 1967. (Much else is shown seemingly relating to the Paul is dead idea, in the film, and we will get to all of it. However, to see this image, press pause-play-pause on the video here.) The image is flashed during and at the end of showing a bird flying -- is it a soul? Of course it is, from the meaning about the car crash itself in the song, but also, if one goes outside the song, using the deformed eyes as a clue -- real or hoax, a clue to the idea of Paul as dead -- one can also argue the bird is a soul image.

An argument that Paul died or that the rumour was really at least proposed by the Beatles, would point to these things as how artistic persons might well represent either a real situation of a body, or imagine one. However, these images of the eyes are particularly consistent for a merely roughly imagined dead person.

And in the "Free as a Bird" video (1995), Sir Paul, Ringo and George -- the remaining Beatles after John Lennon's assassination (and, if Paul was dead in 1966, then after him, too) -- the history of the Beatles is roughly told. The video includes a 1960s car crash and this image, about which more later. It is, however, worth noting that this death-head in "leafy reflection" on the Police Van has to be planted, since it is an image unblurred while the camera pans on the stationary vehicle -- which you can notice even in the frame captured, from the blurred word "Police" on the van at the upper right. We will discuss more about that video, but this author has added coloured shapes to this particular frame capture for the viewer, so that the seemingly bulging right eye and more regular or slit left eye are noticeable. (Also, the curling upper lip, as if the dead-head person were damaged at the mouth by swelling, bruising or tearing, the way some have noted a walrus lip would look on a human. Besides that, walrus eyes droop to the side of the head, too. As well, with teeth exposed from deformation of the lip, the exposed teeth of a dead man such as the one in the window of this police van image, could add to such an effect of comparing this head to that of a walrus.)

This image is much more discussed later in this article. It comes from "Free as a Bird" video, 1995, from here. The coloured shapes are added by this author. This is an unblurred part of the image during a pan of camera on the van as still object and "reflection" in window, which is an optical impossibility, so it was a definitely planted "reflection".  After the segment with this police van, death head "leafy reflection", and a 1960s car crash, a kite is shown, floating up to the sky. Is it a soul, as the bird possibly is, in "A Day in the Life"? Whether Paul died or not, a soul is likely the meaning intended by both the bird and the kite,  internal evidence from this police scene makes the attribution for the kite directly provable inside the video without other context, and the bird is positable as a soul, from the meaning in the song itself about a car crash, as well as by the disgusting glasses face -- and John's drawing and so on, if one went outside the video of "A Day in the Life" to know about the Paul rumour.
This photo shows the opposite eye droop than the drawing, etc., show, but here is a walrus to show the points made above about them. Image from Kamogawa Japan's Seaworld, uploaded to Wikipedia.

We will ultimately see that the head is cracked in several anatomically accurate ways. One is up and out, one side to side, with a dislocation of the forehead bone, cutting the temple and, because our forehead bone actually holds the upper support for our eyes, it pulls the eye on our right up and away from the nose.

 Part of this is shown here:

Detail of top and middle of head in John Lennon's atypical drawing. Top dark area is long spray upward of blood and brain (not shown here). Injury across eyes from bridge of nose to temple area and ear will be discussed.

Cracked egg. Though this is far less accurate to head injuries than we will find the drawing to be, but a good mental simplification of what happens to a head when impacted by a car or in a car. Image found here.

John's drawing is simplified, and many things about it show that he did not have a lot of formal anatomical or training in what people call photo-realism or artistic naturalistic rendering. However, the gist of what he draws is very carefully done, in a simple sense, and is actually rather hard to do for many people, especially if they have not seen something to work from. Even then, John's artistic background -- he had some, and always doodled -- did help him in this drawing.

The young man even has a shovel in his limp hand, symbolizing his gravediggers, as the young man stands on freshly turned earth. It is for people to "Come together over him", at his grave?

Amish coming together over a grave, shovels still present. Image from here.

The dead, injured, young-looking man (the severe injuries would leave him dead) stands as if alive, in a vision, and lightly holds the shovel which dug the earth below him, as if for him to sink into: his own grave.

No matter why John drew this, it is all fairly accurate and was done privately. Was he ruminating on a joke he had pulled on the public?

Was there a rumour at all before 1969? What was going on at all in this regard?

What could a walrus be, in context of a real death? One might as well ask if it is not only a symbol of power. Well, it can look in a way like a brutalized mouth and lips. It does not necessarily mean this, in this case, but it could. Just to make the point, let us look at an ugly image.

There will be other ugly images in this article, too. They are necessary to make a point here or there, just about forensic considerations when talking of death.

Image comparison from this video used to make the point, hypothetically, rather well, that "walrus" imagery might well come from and indicate the effect of head injuries. This includes bulging bruises, swollen cheeks, as well as torn skin revealing teeth. (The video source for the image above is, generally speaking, not endorsed by this author.)

We will show the full drawing, the new so-called Paul is Dead "clue", by John Lennon, of course.

We will also discuss much more, from both sides of the argument about whether the rumour of Paul's death could or does have any merit. But for now, let us introduce how we will go about approaching the material, which so many think is either silly or metaphoric or non-existent or even crass, to see why some people could not be crazy but just wrong or stupid, or even be right, who say the idea has merit and Paul died and was replaced with a fifth Beatle. If the latter occurred, there was a cover-up. Do we understand the different aspects of a cover-up? Does it have to be forced? Can it be partly willing? Can anyone lie to us like this or can we be fooled by our own brains so much?

Not only will we ask if we can be, but we will try to confirm if we were or not in this instance. Those two things must be handled in turn.


Toward the end of John's life, he seems to have been concerned that he might be killed, but he was not obsessed with violent imagery or drawing it in his art. He maintained generally a hopeful image of the world in his drawings, despite some caricaturish resentful and mocking images of people as well.

John Lennon drawing of him, his wife Yoko and their son, Sean, in the late 1970s.
Image from here.

About as grisly or weird as Lennon got in his drawings. This drawing is from one of his early books, "In His Own Write" or "A Spaniard in the Works", 1964 and 1965, respectively.
Drawing was owned by Tom Maschler until a recent auction. Image from here.

His style changed, his competence changed, his interests changed, but the subjects were usually lively or fantastical spoofs of body shapes and imagination.

John Lennon doodled a lot, and in many places. Is this the same thing as doodling "anything, anywhere"?

Is he ever, otherwise, known for doodling disgusting death faces and accurate wound pathology, however much simplified?

NO. He is not known for those. So, why this imagery? Any reason at all? PID reason? Hoax? Real? Just made up by the public, so neither?

Yet John Lennon, for some reason, privately drew a young man dead, with anatomically accurate, though simplified, head injuries and indications that it was a very specific person who had died.

Moreover, the Beatles' record producer and friend, Sir George Martin's Coat of Arms from 2004, showed the same idea, as we saw. He seems to be honouring Paul as dead by showing the manner of death, not by showing the grisly body itself, though of course we could say at this point that perhaps he did this because of some kind of extended joke or metaphor.

The question then becomes: are these items referring to a real death or not? The first thoughts we should have on the side of Paul's real demise would be: Would a coat of arms or a private drawing with grief content be the places to joke about an unreal event? And is there anything else which can show us a context for what is going on in these items, which we can go looking for, just as police would issue a warrant, in case more information might turn up on one side of an argument?

Here is another typical set of John drawings. It is from slightly later than this drawing was likely done, but his general tone and whimsy (even when spoofing or angry, as in the illustrations for "In His Own Write") are notable, in general.

Image from here, uncredited.

Some say John Lennon doodled "anything," "anywhere". Really? As we have asked already: is that literally, typically true of a subject such as this? Actually, not.

But that does not mean the drawing has to be of Paul literally dead.

Let us clarify what that statement means for this drawing we will look at, and for all potential PID theme circumstantial clues and arguments about history:

It is forensically only a drawing, of course! But it is something as a maybe, a piece of fact with significance for an argument, which is called evidence while reasoning about it, it is something: a clue, a potential.

One cannot dismiss it on an ad hoc basis because it may not be related to PID. In fact, because it may, it is not neutral, and goes in as part of the argument for it.

This is how a case is built, whether correct in the end or not, when final judgment is made.

The drawing is not a direct proof of death. But within the circumstantial side of argument it is as close as one may come to such a thing, as we will see.

But it is an informal proof that a further maybe exists, that is, the need, maybe, to get direct proof of death or life, or to at least see if a replacement can be directly proven forensically, even if death proof itself remains indirectly provable only.

The drawing could be easily talked about by some as "just a drawing" and maybe even as "more from the -- putative -- hoax". The first thing to note in that vein is that this would be to ignore the sadness, comforting symbolism, gory quality, detail and accuracy of injuries and privacy in which John kept this drawing for an unknown number of years. But if those could be explained some other way, then yes, of course, the drawing proves nothing even informally -- and never could in a formal sense anyway. But it is not neutral as a maybe. No maybe is; and this maybe has the additional fact of artistically not being a simple "doodle" in some important ways, though it is simple of line and shape, in some senses.

Instead, it is very anatomically accurately detailed in the general placement of injury locations and shapes of bone movements (for someone who does not actually know anatomy formally but gets the outside impression roughly right, for whatever reason), details in little touches of gore, drips of blood, expression of mouth, shapes of swollen eyelids, tiny dots for zipper teeth on the boots, and so on.

Image from here.

We can amass many pieces of evidence -- which does not mean we will call them evidence once we have decided between sides in a case, but all items amassed toward each side are called evidence until then, of course. Many things do not, individually, or ad hoc, have to be on one side or another. But if they seem to lean toward one side, it is counted by that side.

In the Paul is Dead case, in support of Paul's actually having died, one can mention two important pieces of evidence right away, though again, they are in circumstance not direct forensic argument, and also remember they are not ad hoc either dismissable or, on the other hand, surely from a real death of Paul. One item was Sir George Martin's coat of arms, for his heirs. The other item is what gives the title to this article, namely a drawing John Lennon did of Paul dead, as the reader now knows.

Image from here. (A number 3 was removed by this author.)

These items will be shown and discussed, with many other items. And when they (and the other items) are discussed, the details which indicate they are not only evidence for Paul's having died, just because they exist, but in some aspects of them, in detail of what they contain and what context they each come from. But of course, they are evidence toward, not certain evidence of Paul's having died.

How would we know? We might sense some slight indication of a trick, or others could tell us they see or hear something like a trick, but would we know they were correct? Not without looking first at a circumstantial case.

Yet nothing individually in a circumstantial case forces belief one way or another, except by higher likelihood or lower likelihood. One can conclude already, but it is not the same as direct knowledge.

Circumstances, however, can shock us with how much something might begin to show a plausibility. It does not prove the thing happened, not directly, but depending on how much of a circumstantial case we have, indeed we might even say we know something happened, just from those detailed circumstantial pieces of evidence and reasoning between them. Or we might also seek more information, such as forensics, or more circumstantial evidence, from a warrant (if we are police), or to look further, as if we were police, but are not.

Police officer writing a warrant. The public must write its own mental warrant, a metaphorical warrant, if it is searching for answers. In other words, the public must keep searching for as many arguments as possible on both sides of a case, until an answer can emerge as to what is the most likely hypothesis. What can seem likely in the beginning may be confirmed or annulled, if new information and reasoning shows something is possible and even likely, which we may not have expected. Image by author.

So one way or another, long before we ask about forensic studies and what might be gathered to prove Sir Paul now is not, or is Paul then (pre-late 1966), we have to be aware of the circumstantial case for and against such a replacement. Why? Because forensic arguments turn out to have their own problems in analysis, and knowing what is possible or impossible about such a putative replacement will keep things in context.

For example, if one does not understand the types of comparisons one can make for photos, which distortions are relevant or not, or any kind of facial recognition software now, one can say that photos cannot be used for proportional analysis of a face properly. One can also go so far as to say that the age of the photo has anything to do with the issue (it does not, of course).

As to DNA: chain of custody and initial acquisition are the problems. But if these could be managed, then the comparison of course would be to a definitely original McCartney relative: Paul's Liverpool brother Mike McGear (originally Mike McCartney) or a cousin. Surprisingly, some people mention getting DNA samples but cannot fathom whom they would try to get them from or that there would be no way to guarantee chain of custody for the public's satisfaction, outside a court.

Formal proofs have yet to be paid for on voice prints, as we will see. It is US $15-25 K for voice print analysis with write-up. It is done on spoken voice only, by protocol (court-level analysis). Yes, it would be done on old recordings, but there is protocol for dealing with such things, and the more available the better. The same goes with photos and the choices made on how to analyze them.

But what does a court do? It argues circumstance as much as forensics.

But instead of being ignorant of the case overall, let us see whether or not the circumstantial evidence, first, shows one that there are some shocking reasons to believe he was possibly replaced, long before one has to conclude either way. 

Image by author.

Most things we will cover will open up possibility and probability; only in that sense, a circumstantial sense, do they prove anything. We can say they are proof, or not, but we have to begin to recognize their value as potentially supportive items, which are called evidence.

In each case, because the things can be related to a real death and replacement of Paul, we will discuss how they might be. That is what evidence is. It is not, in any situation, even in a forensic situation 100% proof, isolated, without argument. Even DNA, if available, must be argued. It must be argued that the chain of custody is highly likely not broken, that the DNA was uncontaminated, that there is little chance another matches the DNA sufficiently for a false positive conclusion to be drawn. All of this is actually done through circumstantial argument.

All items known in the real world -- that is, arguments about real things, not number itself -- must be considered through inductive reasoning, which means that one reasons to the best explanation of all the evidence, and evidence, remember, means what is a bunch of maybes, but significant maybes.

We will not seek to argue Paul actually died, just because, isolatedly, we see the drawing, the "new" so-called "clue" by John Lennon. We will not seek to argue Paul actually died, just because, isolatedly, we see anything from the circumstantial case. Far from it. But we will argue a maybe each time, and not "just" a maybe. These things are called evidence while they are maybes, in a court. We treat the case as true while we do so, and then dovetail to the other side. We ask about these things at all, because of the fact there is a maybe at all, in the drawing and other "clues". We do not forget they are not the proof individually for what we ask. That would be to use ad hoc reasoning.

Ad hoc reasoning leads one to say that because something can be dismissed but does not have to be, and would otherwise have relevance to a case, that it nevertheless should be dismissed. In fact, some persons go so far as to suggest wrongly that reasoning requires a dismissal of all evidence towards a result simply because one has to imagine that result, that conclusion, that hypothesis in order to test it. This is a fallacy from incredulity. Let us not fall into that idea. Let us see whether the dots do connect in some good way, so to speak. We will not connect dots just at random. We will ask good questions of the hypothesis, and see if there are any surprising and complete lines of reasoning along the way.

Ad hoc dismissals would not connect these dots, but it turns out that they do connect A B and C with centres of circles all the way through. Metaphorical image for ad hoc versus connective reasoning. What do we find with Paul's death rumour? Image from here.

What was the image above a diagram of? It diagrammed seemingly disconnected things which are connected through a physical network, but one which would be unnoticeable if one did not know the connection method. It is called an ad hoc network, and shows us the value of not dismissing ad hoc items of evidence, before looking thoroughly.

How do some of these physical ad hoc networks work?

Ad hoc mobile network shown physically. Image from here.

As an overall case, however, individual items may or may not be beyond what we feel and know is reasonable. If they are found to have some reason for co-existing in the argument, we continue with that line of reasoning, however uncomfortable we may feel about it.

Our sense of what is reasonable, too, may change. Perhaps we will find that things we thought impossible are quite possible or even likely in some cases, and we will have to ask if they are possible in this case. If there are forensic issues, we will ask for them, too, as a police officer would gather more material after a warrant is issued. Forensic problems also have to be argued, though. We have to remember that. We cannot jump to any conclusions as a final thing.

But we do jump to the conclusion enough to know what it would be.

Photo of Salvador Dali, the artist, and cats and water caught in mid-jump, showing tendencies of where things might land. Image from here.

We do jump to the conclusion enough to see where things would tend toward. Then we pull back and ask if there are supportive pieces of evidence ("maybes") which tightly argue for that end, or not.

The conclusion are afraid, maybe, to wonder about is whether Paul was replaced, and whether his own death or his merely bowing out, would be the reason he was replaced, if he was replaced. We first have to know whether he could be and if, further, there were in any likelihood we could find that he was actually replaced.

Only forensics considerations and historical opportunity and perception trickery, if possible, would or could or have proved already that Paul died. We will cover these items, too, but not right away. They all contribute to a general understanding of the issue in their own way, and the forensics issues on either side are, at present, subtle. So we will get into the other questions first, and deeply, from many angles.

The following points do not prove Paulie died. But they also mean a person might really not "see" it if he was!
Either way, they are included just to help with the intellectual points at least, in case he did die, and also just for the fact they are interesting:

Sounding talented or "the same" is not an absolute argument; there are too many factors with mimicry and a set of dismissed differences when there is someone talented performing with willful sameness.
For example, if you did not know it was a trick ...would you suspect these vocalists of mimicry? Maybe. Maybe not.

Certainly to find someone giving a similar -- not exact, according to PID advocates -- impression as Paul in many moments, who also has talent, would be unusual.

What if, unfortunately, the voice is NOT the same? Not exactly the same, that is not the same for real? can something be off enough is some specific ways that it tells us that it is different? Can differences be slight or mistakeable from time to time -- just ENOUGH to fool us?

It can seem that the idea on the left works, but the idea on the right frames the question differently enough that other issues come into view. The idea on the left may work, overall, but obscure some important features regularly and miss either a whole truth or interesting things which make the gist fit with more accuracy and even application in the world. Image about "reframing" ideas ("Why Apple gets it and Google doesn't") from here.

Voice print analysis formally has to be done to show what many people say they have noticed, i.e., a difference. But voice prints have only been tested on songs, which is not protocol. It is hard to describe without a lot of words, what differs audially in a voice, of course. Visuals can be shown more directly, or voice prints can show voices of course. Formal voice print analysis runs about $15-25 thousand, so it has not been formally done in any way since 1970 when someone volunteered his expertise, doing his analysis on the songs -- and he claimed the voices differed. Some people have also used the songs, putting certain phrases into modern voice print analysis software, finding also that the voices seem to differ. But again, these are not done on spoken voice, and there are formalities to doing such work which would be great to have done, just to settle that matter in its own right.

Voice print confusion image from here.

Some guitar and bass players have pointed out that, whether one likes Sir Paul's playing or not, he does look down at his fingers during difficult singing passages far more often than the supposedly original Paul McCartney did.

Apple and orange, often used in the phrase that one is "comparing apples and oranges". Are the styles and skills of the supposedly two Paul McCartneys only superficially similar, like roundness and the fact that apples and oranges are both categorized as fruit? Are the voices morphed a bit to sound alike until time and age can become excuses for them? Image from here.

Other bass players speak in general terms about how Sir Paul is the same. So is looking down at his fingers in difficult passages more than he did merely a change in one man's style and mood over a short space of time, or is it a signal, among many, that we have a new bandmate in Sir Paul, however much we might like or dislike his musical contributions to the Beatles and in his solo work?

Any of the so-called clues left by the Beatles, and any possible indicators of difference must be held in the mind as evidence for a replacement, just to see how deep the circumstantial case goes for this idea, even if it turns out to be wrong.

Stick-to-it-iveness is important. Perseverence is important. Even if we lose the idea we were building, that is, if it is incorrect -- as in this case many of us hope it is and think it to be -- then only by plumbing the depths of an issue will we know it.

"Stick-to-it-iveness (Sticktoitiveness): Any old sucker can quit." A pun is made on the word sucker here, because of octopus' physical suction. However, this image is included both for the idea of perseverence and intelligence (octopuses are smart), and also for the idea of depth of what we must look at for some cases, such as with the idea of Paul's death. But of course, in this image, depth is literal: from the implied sea from which this creature originates. -- Image from here.

Could not body language studies help and learning typical voice modes (fast, slow, etc.) in speech help, these things be acted sometimes -- not perfectly, but doing typical things more often -- and with similar interests, a bit of studio magic, and so on, enough, that with some plastic surgery work (including cheek filler), could not someone maybe be found who would love to rise to the occasion, musically and gain new vistas for his contacts in life?

Probably. It might be hard to find someone initially (unless there was a plot to get him in anyway, or the people helping scout for someone had a lot of contacts somehow, such as in intelligence circles, which most people do not realize are not only creepy or normal, but a mix of both) -- but maybe someone could be found.

As we have begun to see:

For whatever reasons, John Lennon, a famous man and generally a truthteller, but one who ran from certain kinds of problems, drew a young man dead. The young man figure has many features which, for some reason, though possibly done for a hoax or joke, which we will discuss as options, can nevertheless identify him as John's best friend, Paul McCartney, accurate to the anatomy of head injuries, especially ones which might come from being hit and smashing ones head onto a flat surface, prone, such as in a car impact while standing on the street.

A scooter struck by a car sent the rider's helmet flying. Image cached here from page here.

Why did he draw this -- and accurately, poignantly in style, with direct reference to the Beatles, and privately?

Just a few of the aspects of the drawing as it relates to a few aspects of the songs. Is this all a hoax? Of course, lists such as these can make the issue seem planned, item by item, but in fact the drawing is shockingly accurate to anatomical headwound damage, though simplified in impression by the rather unsophisticated artist (Lennon did not know much anatomy or accurate rendering techniques). The drawing was also private, which suggests a real mourning process, in context of everything else we will go into. But was it a real mourning?

One way or another, the private drawing is accurate and does show images suggesting specifically a young Beatle as dead from serious head injury. Even Lennon's former bandmate, Stu Sutcliffe, who died from probable complications from head injury, did not have his head completely crushed on one side with opposite-sided serious resultant injuries from major bone fractures.

Image from here.



One must be open to the idea that one could be tricked, and learn the ways to tell. Only openness to something we think has no merit can help us learn if we were deceived and how we were tricked, if so.

What if we are not told there is a trick? Will we rush the stage of a magician, punch a friend who duped us well, and so on?

A magician sawed a woman in half -- or did he? Image from here, cached here.

What if we are not aware there is a trick?

And what if there is no malice, but a lie was started?

What if we are not allowing new impressions to form? Perhaps even simple things have been misinterpreted and Paul really did die?

If Paul died and was replaced covertly -- but not entirely secretly -- the reason for continued secrecy would be most likely that the Beatles and those around them might fear they would be maligned and even censured for having felt the need to continue without saying their friend had died.

Shame emotion image from here.

Threats from those helping the putative coverup would also probably take a toll, and would be likely to have occurred -- even if rarely.

If there are so-called clues, many of the so-called clues would probably have made their way into the work anyway, even if such a situation had been admitted to, since grief will leave references in artistic works anyway.

Angel in grief tombstone, 1895, Rome, Italy. Sculpture by American expatriate William Story for his deceased wife, Emelyn Story. (This is the original of more famous replica in San Francisco, at Stanford University, erected for victims of San Francisco 1906 earthquake.) Image from here.

How can we know whether Paul was in fact replaced and if he was, what happened to him? Normally, people rest on direct perception with assumptions about how accurately their perceptions are functioning. But perceptions do sometimes go awry, that is, from assumptions. We can build up slightly incorrect ideas -- audially or visually or narratively (our logic) -- and these overall perceptions can fool us if we are not careful.

Is Sir Paul McCartney's voice the same, really? Are his looks the same enough to be merely changed from age and a bit of friendly -- unsuspicious -- plastic surgery from time to time, which he's talked about? Is his playing as competent early on -- or later? Or have most people's wishful thinking and a few tricks, sleights of hand, deflections misled their brains when their ears and eyes send raw information there?

Wishful thinking: "I wish I was a unicorn" (or, if properly spoken: I wish I were a unicorn). Image from here - cached on Google now from an unavailable page.

Even if Paul did not die, all things considered, in the images and in the general context we will be talking about, the best immediate explanation for the coat of arms' central imagery is that in addition to the three beetles' representing the three Beatles, Sir Paul, George and Ringo after John's death, there is also a reference to the death or supposed death of Paul as a separate person than Sir Paul.

Different guys or the same ones? Image from here.

Exact sound and image copying of a new bandmate playing a role of Paul for the first years would not actually be necessary. We will cover this eventually, but the man replacing Paul would only have to be presented as the same and have some similarities, to fool people. There are many ways to show this.

Even one year into the ruse, if there was a ruse, there would be even less need for exact copying, which would never have been needed, either.

Image by author.

Even if Paul was not replaced, we have to know that the kinds of mistakes which might make him replaced and our not generally figuring it out can also occur in some situations. Slightly wrong or partial facts can be corrected and become the basis for court cases we would have doubted had any merit to start with. Many instances of such corrections, not only in court, have led to small and large revisions of history and general perception.

"Sometimes we need to regroup". Image from Twitter account of @jojokejohn


Disentangling truths can be tricky and, though the next image is artistic, not of history, hopefully it will serve as a metaphor for what sometimes has happened with science and historical overarching meanings: a confusing entanglement. In the case of Paul as two people, of course, it is also metaphorically strong: two persons, in this case male and female and blond and brunette, respectively, still come across almost as one body. How so? Due to the angle of the legs spread out and the hip angle of the woman.

It is really in the hips and the bottom legs that the illusion is given. Will you notice that? But we could tell something is wrong with seeing the bottom right leg is the woman's -- if we were careful -- and even if much of the image were blocked out, just by the fact that the foot on the right is angled in an impossible way for it to come from those hips.

Image from here.

Do you see that fact? That one thing would indicate something was wrong, even if the male and the woman's right leg were blocked out.

That is the kind of subtlety we would have to manage, if Paul now is not the same person, literally, as Paul was in the early 1960s. But doing that kind of subtle work is hard, when we might resist doing so because we might turn out to have been right all along and think the effort not worth doing to start with. Or because we might alternatively have been fooled and get upset.

The idea, if true, would be that the Beatles and many around them were afraid that the band, unlike others, could not continue without its complex duo songwriting and singing team, at least at first in the public's perception. The Beatles, unlike many other bands, rested on a kind of tight camaradarie musically and in friendship, especially between its two lead singers, McCartney and Lennon. Like Simon and Garfunkel's special musical sound and writing collaboration could the Beatles continue with a ghostwriter, or an acknowledged new lineup?

Some bands have done that, after a death or someone leaves. But the Beatles were, sorry to say for non-fans, a very special case. Would a "Fab 3" or "New 4" really have worked, conceptually, if not musically?

Demonstration of the concept of what the Beatles would face if Paul died at their height, in late 1966 and they had continued with no new bandmate or with an overtly acknowledged new bandmate. Even today, the sound of such a change from the original famous Fab 4 is overtly ludicrous.  Whether or not Paul was replaced, some persons dismiss the idea by using the objection that because other bands replaced members with no problem or little problem, the Beatles could do so and continue. But the Lennon-McCartney team was integral within the band, which was also a very recognizable set of four persons as a unit and named as such, as "Fab 4". Imagery for the mind and collaboration for the ear are hard to replace -- except with a ruse, maybe. Some think there could be no replacement, even with a ruse, but the point right now is that only with a ruse would it be possible, at all. Image by author.

Well, would Simon and Garfunkel be able to continue without Garfunkel or Simon? If they did, would they find someone similar anyway, to try to replicate the feel, the sound, the look of the original member of the group? And would the Beatles in 1966 uniquely be so powerfully famous and wonderful to so many people that daring to continue in a new lineup could -- could at all -- seem to be impossible without a coverup?

Whether a person likes their work or not, the Beatles had a stardom never equalled in the specific ways it impacted the public. There was a very specific image in the public's mind of who was involved, for each of the four, but especially for the lead singers. If anyone inside the Beatles' circle or in the companies sponsoring them doubted that the Beatles might continue after Paul died, if he did die, it would not be impossible that someone might have suggested a subtle ruse. And who would have suggested such a thing? Intelligence agencies spring to mind, and they, like police, do not tend to like having their operations revealed, either, after they have become involved.

But, people often say now, how to find someone exactly alike to Paul McCartney, or as great, and so on? Those are, of course, the wrong questions.

"Am I asking the wrong question? -- ?" Image from here.

The first question would be instead, have you been fooled as to how alike the supposedly two people are? And, as to greatness, the question really is, can greatness be different -- even equal but different in type of greatness -- and fool you in some ways?

Those are the correct questions. When we pose them, we find that, evidence for and against Paul's replacement aside for the moment, the issue becomes possible hypothetically.

Corrective action, with different letters being fixed physically by the figures below. Image from here.

Even if Paul was not replaced, we have to correct our questions.

If there was a lie, the lie snowballed and was never formally admitted to.

Self-explanatory snowball metaphor image from here.




They claim the rumour itself does not scare them because it would be too ridiculous to bother with. What does this mean? It means, really, that they would feel utterly crazy to feel through and think through this seriously.

A crazy idea about Britain, just as Paul's putative death taken seriously would be, right? -- (The British are spoofed in this dance routine, by Paris's "Crazy Horse" dance troupe. Image from here.)

This is called an argument from incredulity and incongruity. It does not in fact address whether the argument is in fact incredible and incongruous. It only addresses an uncareful but emotionally sure position. It is false skepticism, bordering on cynicism -- even when ultimately the person who resists being careful happens to be right.

Do you want to be right for the wrong reasons? And if you are wrong, do you want to know?

Anyway, if we hold strong impressions does not mean those impressions are wrong, but if they are, how do we chop that idea down? Impressions have emotional logic. We have to chop from one side, then another, if we need to cut that impression's idea down, so to speak. When would we bother?
In difficult cases such as whether Paul died, sometimes we have to hope that people will look at the material logic, and just pose questions to themselves, enough to at least consider the hypothesis that they were fooled. If all was legitimate, then serious research would substantiate it, and if not, then the world deserves to know -- even though this is about a band.

What is a general impression around Paul's putative death? Well, there are several photos of possible re-enactment of it, in addition to all the other material. Let us just glance at those a moment. Isolated, they are no proof of anything, nor is anything else. But maybe they were done for the reason that John wanted very much to act out what he had witnessed, if Paul died.

In addition to having Yoko Ono photograph him against a white car, a VW Beetle, which we saw above, where he is listening to the street in front of the Beetle, John played dead a couple of times, in a staged mourning scene in one and in a more grisly style in another, with a car again. It is not Paul in the possible re-enactments of the rumour's death, but John is taking on the role, if the connection to the rumour or even death of Paul is the right interpretation of these scenes. If he is, it would be due to his own greater grief or obsession with the issue, then, not a literal re-enactment in Paul's own name by the new Paul in the hypothesis.

Does any of this relate either to the rumour alone as a hoax, or even also to a real death in the rumour? Can we know?

John Lennon plays dead by headwound, with the other Beatles in posed shock and sadness, in the last official photo shoot for the year of 1968. Image from here.

Johnny playing dead in front of his own Rolls Royce, circa 1967-68. Image from here.

George Harrison is about to be hit by a car in the film segment for his song "Blue Jay Way". (The clip is like a music video inside the 1967 movie, "Magical Mystery Tour".)

Image from "Blue Jay Way" song clip in "Magical Mystery Tour" film, 1967. At the end of the clip, Harrison is obliterated, by implication, when the screen fades to white as the headlights come at him directly. There is also a headless man lying dead -- the image is blue, though the man himself is likely an actor -- in the same film clip. Image film still from here.

A decapitated or damaged-head body represented as decapitated, though using an actor, we can presume. Done as if this were someone on a slab in a morgue. Harrison's image is still slightly on screen in this screen capture from "Magical Mystery Tour" film, in the scenes for George Harrison's "Blue Jay Way" song. The film was made in late 1967. Image from here.

Now here George Harrison is singing about friends losing their way in LA, but quite a lot of imagery in the segment refers to death and death by car impact. Can the message be not only about the song, but also about the idea of Paul's death? Actually, there is a lot more to the film's bizarre Paul references in this light, so we can say yes, if we know more. But the issue for now let us just note the fact that headwounds and deaths by car crash, recur in Beatles artworks in different ways. We will have to see other things to note that Paul us also linked to this idea in many ways.

But the drawing John did surpasses these issues from a general artistic theme; in other words, since it was privately done, is accurate and very mournful, one may wonder if we have a window on a real event, through this drawing. Maybe not, but let us at least put the idea out there.

Whether these images stir the mind or one decides to dismiss them, let them not be dismissed too quickly. That is ad hoc reasoning. They could be nothing, or they could be something, because the theme is far wider than the photos alone.

Image from here.

Can we tell right away? If not, how do we tell? Are we willing to find out even if we were right anyway and there was no trick? Will we bother? Let us begin this particular case.


For the idea of Paul's death to be derived from nothing, there would have to be no items planted which could tentatively be called clues. Sure, if they exist, we could choose to explain them away, but at that point, with no more information, it would be a choice to explain them away.

So we would have to find that there were no items we could determine to be planted. How would we determine they are real planted items? If there are any of a type which submits them to special testing. And yes, if there are any self-evident thematic constellations in a pattern. We will discuss what self-evident pattern-finding versus what crazy pattern-finding is.

And if there were a coverup, would it work? Who would have thought of it? Why not tell later? Or would it be obviously stupid and even scary to tell later?

Can a lie snowball?

Self-explanatory snowball metaphor image from here.

But in some sense, maybe they did tell us. If so, it was sneaky, but maybe not disrespectful of the dead, if there was a dead Paul. Mentions of death can occur quite naturally and in a cover-up some cleverness would be added. It would not be that statements would be made simply to be clever about a dear friend's death.

The Beatles supposedly told us, fairly directly, without being formal about it. What would that mean? It means clues were supposedly put in to let out their guilt and hint to those who did not see the switch, so that the original bandmate and the new one and the grief and suppression of everyone's feelings, could in some way be acknowledged. This would mean, further, that they wanted to feel as if they had told people outside their circle and their protectors helping in intelligence agencies, etc., but not tell people directly enough that they would have to admit the ruse publicly.




Instead of bouncing off the subject matter, by saying the sound and look of the supposedly two men are the same, let us look at the issue more carefully. Do we dare?

Sometimes initial suggestions made to us have biased us just enough to enchain us, fool our brains directly or also in how we assess logic about the idea afterward.



We can always return to our previous beliefs if we need to. If we were right, we will know with even more background, though we may feel learning was a waste of time in some ways.

Unless the u-turn we might seek to make would be then unreasonable.

Image from here.

But let us get through the whole thing before shutting off, before going back to what we felt before. Let us be a public jury, a careful one, and police investigators intellectually. We have to be very careful, and we have to move beyond our first certainties. We may find there is no case for replacement, or it is extremely weak. If we need to comfort ourselves with that thought in order to be unprejudiced during the discussion, then we may think of how we can probably go back to what we wanted to think about the Beatles and ourselves.



If something becomes associated in our minds with positive things, or a particular impression of similarity, then it tends to continue.

For example, if the Beatles' Paul McCartney figure, young and older, is the same person, and one person brought joy and fun and psychedelic colour, so to speak, to the masses, we get to feel this, and were told that this is what that supposedly one figure was linked to:

Image from here.

If something becomes associated with negative things, or a particular impression of difference, then it tends to continue.

So if Paul died and we were told, not only would we have had to face the implications of what his death would have looked like, supposedly by being hit by a car, or hit in a car and his head smashed, but also we would have to face that either the Beatles were gone, effectively, or there was a new lineup, something most people would not have immediately chosen as a great thing, to say the least. The Beatles were a unique group of friendly and intelligent young fellows, very tied together in the public mind and musically in songwriting and singing, especially Paul and John Lennon.

And if there was a lie to cover it up, then we probably would resent the lie, in addition, even if we ultimately understood why it was done, if it was done. This would add to the situation of feeling negative and the following type of image of what reality was for Paul would be combined with that  -- but do not worry, the image is a painting only:

"Disgusting" by "Taron". Image from here.

Ironically, however, this image does show the damage from impact on the same side as the so-called new clue about Paul's supposed death, which gives the title to this article. It is a John Lennon drawing. However, John's seemingly simple drawing is actually far more accurate in what the injuries would be from a strong impact! Perhaps the head drawn above was done almost purely from imagination, or the manner of death was quite different in the source for it.

John's drawing, even if it is not really of Paul, is accurate to a smashed head, but not by a blunt object, rather as when a person's head hits or is hit along one side. It is the right side of the head, as in the painting above, however.


Whether Paul died is not strictly sure from any circumstantial piece of evidence about the issue, even the coat of arms of Sir George Martin but that the issue is at least being referenced is the most likely explanation of the total imagery and context outside of the coat of arms. Why, is the further question, of course. But one way or another, a coat of arms is unlikely to contain a joke reference or a reference to something which was silly or merely metaphorically true, not with a tire tread for death itself.

How does a trick work?

The way that most tricks are done is through misdirection. However, some are done with one's own emotions or even brain hardwiring contributing to the problems.

How does one learn to see a trick was done, even if one never sees the trick itself as it is done, such as with some optical illusions, where one can know there is a trick because of certain indications, even as the trick still leaves an overall wrong impression and tricks us? How does one ask what could be a trick?

In the case at hand, which we will come to momentarily, indeed some do see a trick, perceive parts of what may be a trick. Is it they or the general numbers of people in the public who are fooled, mistaken, wrong? If they are right, is there a way to see the illusion they say is going on? What if a person never sees it, hears it, but it is real? Is there a way to tell that there is an illusion without even seeing or hearing it? Sometimes an overall circumstantial case can show that there is an illusion and how it works; sometimes there are direct lines of proof as well, which, when isolated, can show it.

Here is an example from a simple optical illusion:

Escher style optical illusion with cube. Image from here.

All this requires is keeping the original shadows on the bars in the back, but crossing the lines in front of the bars in the top front areas. Yet it will tease the brain every time, for most people. But one can know how it was done as well, if one has no prejudice against knowing.

Maybe Paul's death is not a real trick, but the only way to find out is to amass evidence, if there is any at all, which points to the idea as reality, and see if there are any aspects to that evidence which lead further.

Not all tricks fool all brains, but no matter what, there is almost always some way or many ways to tell what is going on, even if one is always fooled deep down.

One must be open to the idea that one could be tricked, and learn the ways to tell. Only openness to something we think has no merit can help us learn if we were deceived and how we were tricked, if so.


John Lennon in his 30s, pensive at a white piano. Image from here.

Accident victim image from here.

The drawing we are about to show, from John Lennon's hand, is circumstantial, not direct forensic evidence about the case for a death of Paul. However, it does raise some forensic issues, by drawing them. It does not, of course, prove the case of itself, nor can any circumstantial item alone do so. Only an entire circumstantial case can do that, and even then there is a judgment made before direct evidence may come in. Court cases can be settled on the arguments of circumstance, but of course direct evidence of replacement would be needed, and even better, direct evidence of death, in this case.

Now let us begin to look at the John Lennon drawing of a dead young man. This article will go into the issues surrounding the drawing. Links and background information will be given as we go. But first, let us note a few things just to start with.

A few comments should lead us to understand just a tiny bit about the drawing, the new so-called Paul is Dead clue item, though the drawing was not completely unknown before this article. (It was rarely remarked upon in Paul is Dead research circles, however, and not in much detail.)

It was a private drawing, which should raise questions, since if the idea was a joke, why get this drawing out privately? It was little remarked upon until now, though known before. Why was it not remarked on more? It does not appear in even large compendia ("compendiums") of John's artwork, but is legitimate. The sources will be discussed later on; it is done inside an album which is famous for the signatures of all four Beatles, in the 1970s, and is in a major American collection. It was done before it was given away, not on the date it was given.

What can we know from it and about its context? Is it part of a joke? He doodled a lot. Is this a mere doodle? Or is it a simple but tender and relatively detailed drawing?

Orange & Yellow: Fairly flat top edge to head. (Note the bottom orange arrow shows how flat this continues all the way to the back of the head, though those are other bones than in front.) / Red & Black & Yellow: Gash in temple area is from the frontal (forehead) bone, which is fairly straight and is one piece for forehead, temple and upper eyesockets. It is pushed sideways and broken at upper nose, and behind eyes, where it connects to the lower face. / Black arrows: Eyelid (closed), Nose, Moustache. / Green & Yellow-Green: Skull piece cracked out (parietal bone). / Blue & Grey: Temporal bone (split from sutures of skull, that is, splitting most easily along natural joins of the bone pieces) moves forward and up relative to face, cutting skin at ear because of the temporal bone's styloid and mastoid processes (spike and bump of that bone, which sit near the ear).

John Lennon has to have seen a photo or real crash or similar victim of a sideways blunt force trauma to the head, or studied anatomy to get the following facts correct, aboutposition of  injuriesrough shapes which the bones make when shiftingsome guesses as to what is going on within the skin (from where the bones have moved, in order to end up where they often do).

The real anatomy of the injuries above is: a forehead splits from the lower head through the middle of the eye sockets at the position of the eyes, but at the position of the nose, it splits at the upper nasal bone projection, right at the browline (above the middle of the eye sockets);it often cuts the temple opposite to the impact, in the process; andthe temporal bone's spike (called the styloid process) can easily also dislocate with that bone and cut the lower ear, pressing it upward, along with the nearby large bump on the temporal bone (called the mastoid process), on the side opposite to the and head at top are lost or less visible, as the parietal bones shift when impact loosens them from their sutures with other bones, as well as when most brain and blood matter loss explodes from their large cavity -- and sometimes shatter as well.

(Parietal bones are the two top rear bones which join at the top of the skull and run like large bony rounded flaps on the upper back of the skull.) head flattens from the shift of the rear bone (the occipital), as well as from the loss of brain matter and space inside parietal arched cavity, when the top rear (parietal) bones collapse and shift, and finally from the forehead (the frontal bone) shifting up and backward into the former cavity of the parietal area. Much of the lower part of the head is damaged, too, but it is not obvious from the outside.

Remember, though:


The reason is that the drawing is a simplified idea structure, more like a doodle in simplicity, though not in offhandedness of which ideas go together.

And Paul had only general features plus generally a sweet look -- both of which this drawing has. His one notable main feature was dark hair, but if lines are used so as to be clear about injuries and darkness of blood spatter above must be maintained, dark hair could well be left out. The line work indicates hair (sort of) in the top side squiggles, but mostly it is the bone or skin breakage at forehead level which is emphasized on the top. For the bottom, sweetness has to do to resemble a fellow such as Paul: he did not wear glasses, a moustache (until later, if it is the same fellow later), did not have a beaky nose or huge ears to include.

He did have notably lovely eyebrows, but adding eyebrows can overdo an expression (look shocked or too contrasty). In fact, the drawing looks more sweet without eyebrows. If it is Paul, it need not have eyebrows and dark hair: in this way it is a doodle, i.e., simplified, but in the seriousness and exactness of ideas, it is not a doodle, i.e., careless or unworked ideas.


The drawing overall tends to simplify lines and symbols, plus medical injuries. The face is also simple, not a portraiture style.

Yet for all the injury malformations, including deformations of the eyes and temple, the face is sort of simple and thus sweet. Could this be a loving touch from John, plus a nod to Paul's good looks? Maybe.

If the purpose of the drawing was to represent a young man who died, but not be an overly accurate portrait, and the young man had no strong features to characterize him with (except those which do not fit the drawing's other purposes: in showing a crack at the top, dark hair would distract the line, and in showing a simple but injured face, arched Paul-like eyebrows would distract or change the effect) ...

and if the main driver of how the face is drawn is to portray the emotional and visual memory (effect on the artist) of the event of a death, injury ...

and a second purpose is to add a symbolic overlay of comfort, spiritual rebirth and so on ...

The drawing could well be Paul without being any more detailed in portraiture than it is. Of course, without other considerations, it might not be.

The eyes are dislocated, damaged, or both.

Image from here.

Image for dead fish with dislocated eye, from here.
And what is John seeing, in his mind's eye, for whatever reason?

Here are the eyes from his drawing:

Are these "ju-ju" (wonky, dislocated) eyeballs, as John wrote in a song, for whatever reason? They sure are.

Images from here.

Dislocated eye on dog. Image from here. (NOTE: This image comes from a Webpage asking for people to donate to help such animals who are sick or injured. If you are interested, please help.)


We will discuss the injuries later, with Grey's Anatomy bone diagrams, as well. We will compare to the John and other Beatles songs, in various ways. We will not derive a narrative from all over the song repertoire, however; this can be too subjective. Only close thematic links will be discussed, and forensics of death -- even if Paul did not die.

Here are a few things from some songs:

"Beatle boots" are a style of short "gumboot", originally derived from a knee-high leather "Wellington" boot, all with medium heels (called "Cuban heels")
Plus, the drawing is particularly accurate about injuries to the head, further refining the song imagery.

What if? Or is it all too impossible?



I am the Walrus.
John Lennon in the Walrus mask, for film clip music "I Am the Walrus" song segment, "Magical Mystery Tour" film, September 1967. And John is already proclaiming he is not the Walrus identity, though: 'I am the Walrus / "No, you're not," said Little Nicola,' are both from song list of "Magical Mystery Tour" album, December 8, 1967 release in UK. "I am the Walrus" is the song in the list, but under it is scrawled the disclaimer. --- The song "Glass Onion" would not be written until 1969, with the overt "The Walrus was Paul" line.

... I am the egg man.

Detail of top and middle of head in John Lennon's atypical drawing. Top dark area is long spray upward of blood and brain (not shown here: see next detail image of drawing).
Image found here.

Another directional damage is a sideways split of the head through just under the left eye, leaving a gaping wound on the figure's left, our right. This is exactly an external impression of what a collapsed and dislocated frontal bone would do in a side impact, in combination with what the parietal bone higher up and in back does.
In the temple split, and the ear-flap gore, as we will see, John Lennon got correct the natural places for little-known injury areas which would be natural on the side opposite an impact from the side of the head -- little known injury areas, that is, to laypeople. (In fact, the author of this article actually did not even notice the temple injury in the photo as anything but some strange split, until she had already used the photo.) If John saw an injury from the outside and wished to depict it somewhat diagrammatically from the visual effect it leaves, but did not understand exactly what caused it, he did very fine in his attempt in the drawing.

The opposite side to the trauma will tend to do the following, just as it did in the man in the photo:
Images of skull are from Grey's Anatomy textbook, reproduced for here. Overlaid text and shapes were done by author of this article on PID.

Frontal bone can easily cut temple skin while moving up and away away from lower head. It is one bone, crossing behind upper eyeballs and its support shifting at all would dislocate an eye or both. It also would tend to shift as a whole, in the case of a sideways impact, as John actually is showing. Parietal bone on one side would collapse into centre area, spewing brain matter up and outward, and the other side, on the side of the impact, especially if the head remains in the same position on the ground, for example, can have its parietal bone shift upward and break, as we see with the fragment on the street in the photograph. Much brain matter vacates (explodes), as John draws.

The pink stars indicate the locations of the main upper head injuries visible from the front, but on the side opposite to the main serious sideways blunt force trauma to the head. At the nose position, the forehead bone dislocates along the upper eye area, but, at the position of the eyes, it dislocates roughly through the middle of the eye sockets. If hit from one side, it dislocates along the temple in a jagged fashion, and if the hit is on the opposite side of what we are seeing in this diagram, then it will come straight toward the viewer relative to this diagram, cutting the side of the head at the temple.

The skin near the lower ear is cut by the temporal bone's spikes and bumps, called the styloid and mastoid processes, which push the lower ear up as well.

Why and how did John come to draw this, and accurately?
Was it part of a public hoax of PID,or part of a hidden reality of PID,or unrelated at all?

John's drawing -- for whatever reason he drew it -- includes specific injury details which are a "wonderful" confirmation that he was highly likely working from a real external impression of real injury pathology. ... Again, for whatever reason he drew it.

It is also true that the side where the force hit the head is damaged, intensely, but injuries there are so severe that from the outside, little can be discerned of the specifics of what has happened. Also, if one does not wish to make too grisly a drawing, that side of the head would not be represented as accurately. In fact, John's drawing leaves that side unfinished, though in such a way that the viewer's eye can complete the face as if it is somewhat normal.

If indeed he is drawing a side blunt force trauma to the head, he found a very tasteful solution.

Author's own demonstration of photo's natural bone movement injuries (opposite side) compared to John's drawing (correct side in this diagram). Apologies that the frontal bone is drawn incorrectly, as if the eyesockets in the frontal bone are higher than the nasal bridge connection. The brow is like that on the surface; but the sides and eyesockets are lower on the frontal bone than the frontal bone at the nasal ridge. Thus, the nasal ridge splits with the lower half of the head higher at the nose than at the eyesockets. This is a major mistake in this diagram, but if the reader follows the description and compares with the points made about the drawing, it will not be a problem. The point will be that the eyesockets partly move with the brow and the upper nose would be dislocated from the forehead.

Top Grey's Anatomy skull image overlays show where the frontal and parietal bones move to, and why a temple split in the skin can occur on the side opposite a blunt force side trauma to a head.
Bottom Grey's Anatomy skull image overlays show where the temporal bone's sharp and large but blunt bulges, called "processes", can easily cut the lower ear area and push it up on the side opposite a blunt force side trauma to a head, leaving the ear hanging like a flap under the temple, as in John's drawing and the photo. (The photo, though, shows that there might well not be one continuous wound from temple to lower ear area, as in John's drawing, but either the injuries were slightly different on John's subject, whoever that is, or John was simplifying the injury area in his memory and depiction.)

Is he dead?Sit you down, Father. Rest you.(King Lear, Shakespeare, from BBC production, used in song)- "I am the Walrus", John Lennon

The John Lennon drawing we will be discussing, among everything else in this article, shows a man who is very injured in his head: he is dead, but it has not been recognized by any public commenter, because of a number of things. 1) It is so unlike John to draw death explicitly that this slips through people's final barrier, mentally, it seems. 2) The look and feel of the drawing are simple and sympathetic, adding to a lack of shock value, which might jolt more people to realize what John is drawing. (He drew it privately, so he did not have to be drawing it to make people realize anything.) The figure is, as well, at least superficially like an apparition in an icon or a Mediaeval mosaic of a saint, which were for adoration and vision, with symbols of their martyrdom or death.

Martyr Saint Paraskevi, or Paraskeve, virgin, holding her method of death in her hands: a whip and her beheaded head. She is comforted and blessed with a martyr crown by an angel. Past and present are both existing in the same time in the painting: her death is pictured around her and she stands, dead, and alive, and after death (thus she is zombie-like if physical, dreamlike or apparitional, ghostly if otherworldly).Image from here.
He is both alive and dead. He is a zombie and a saint-like vision as he is represented, though the idea of representing a dead person with symbols around them is also just dream like, not truly about literal sainthood.


The gore spills upward while he stands, which is a conflation of time: the time of injury or of lying on the ground after injury, but he is upright and fairly coherent in his limbs, though not energetic in his pose. So in a sense he is dead and alive: an apparition or set of different memories or thoughts in the mind of the artist.
A view from atop a dead body, bleeding out from the head, a floating visitation from spirit showing the last condition of the body, a consoling and pragmatic set of symbols around him (not shown) ... are all present in this drawing's figure's pose, given his condition and the direction of the gore at the top:


Here's another clue for you all: the Walrus was Paul.- Glass Onion, John Lennon.

(Image found under Google search "Walrus Paul", here. Page it is from will not load due to error, here.)

Image comparison from this video used to make the point, hypothetically, rather well, that "walrus" imagery might well come from and indicate the effect of head injuries. This includes bulging bruises, swollen cheeks, as well as torn skin revealing teeth. (The video source for the image above is, generally speaking, not endorsed by this author.)


3.Shoot me, Shoot me, Shoot me. Shoot me. ...
Sad-looking John Lennon. Image here.(Not included because this specific snapshot image is related to the topic.)

Here come ol' Flat-Top. ...
Top damage to Head of figure in John Lennon drawing: top of head missing or flattened.

Note the unfinished quality to the figure's right side, our left. If the impact on a real body hit on that side, it would be so disfigured that completing the injuries from an external impression would not only be even more gory than those depicted in the drawing, but also it would be hard for an average observer (one unskilled in anatomy) to render them. If John did not want to show the worst look as visual literalism, and could not figure out what happened in the most smashed part of the face, he might well leave it suggested with a broken line, as he has here: on the one hand, it is tasteful, and on the other hand, it demonstrates the level of anatomical knowledge of the artist, i.e., little knowledge.
We also see a big flap, hanging or dislocated on the temple side; at this area and of that shape is of course the ear, and indeed ear flaps are often cut at the upper cheek area when a temporal bone shifts outward and its lower "processes" (bumps and spikes) cut the skin. In fact, the human temporal bone has a particularly spiky process, called the styloid, right at that location.

Note the left side of the face, our right. It indicates an upper temple region split. This matches the natural joint of frontal (temple, forehead, upper eyesocket bone, which is one bone and would naturally tend to stay coherent on the opposite side of a side impact). Interestingly, the upper nose, not the mid-forehead is where the dislocation starts in the drawing, a darker line even emphasizing that point between the eyes. In a real dead body of this type, the skin would not necessarily be broken there, but the face would have caved there, as the frontal bone (forehead bone) moved upward.

If Paul was hit by something on his right side (such as a car), his left temple would split there, from the frontal bone or the parietal (upper back side bone) jutting out at its suture position with the other. His ear would likely be cut and project at the bottom, his upper nose connection to brow broken as well.

The man in the photo and the young man in the drawing have somewhat similar injuries. The side of the head affected by impact is the main differing factor, and the fact that the man in the drawing may not have been lying on something: he may have been hit and bounced off (ricocheted, whiplash sideways), leaving a somewhat less smashed look to the head.


He got ju-ju eyeballs. ...
Eyes of figure in John Lennon drawing
He wear no shoeshine.... He got Walrus gumboot.

"Beatle boots" are a style of short "gumboot", originally derived from a knee-high leather "Wellington" boot, all with medium heels (called "Cuban heels"). The drawing's are disheveled, damaged and- or coming off the feet. The Beatles popularized the shorter style but did not invent it.

He's got feet down below his knee. ...
Putative second Paul, shoeless, on the famous Abbey Road album cover, which is often rumoured to be replete with Paul is Dead references. If shoes or boots were partly coming off a putatively dead Paul, this might well inspire the imagery above.

Hold you in his arms, yeah, [lyrics sheet error says 'armchair',] you can feel his disease. ...
Feel and smell of death. Image found here.
He say "One and one and one is three".John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr of the Beatles, pictured together before 1966. Later, in late 1966 (by most pro-PID reckoning), did it actually come to this for a few months? Are these the three original Beatles who survived late 1966 -- and a new "Lonely Hearts" band really did form: with a new fourth Beatle unannounced to the public? Image from here.- Come Together (Over Me), John Lennon

Coming together over a grave, shovels still present. Image from here.

The dead, injured, young-looking man (the severe injuries would leave him dead) stands as if alive, in a vision, and lightly holds the shovel which dug the earth below him, as if for him to sink into: his own grave.


I listen for your footsteps, but they don't arrive. ...You were in a car crash and you lost your hair. ...
(Blur from camera panning is demonstrable on Police Van before 60s car crash scene. There is no blur on reflection or object in window. If an object moves, and a camera does not, a reflection would not have blur. But this camera is moving. The head-like shape has to be planted-- for whatever reason.)Free as a Bird, music video screen shot, Beatles

John Lennon looks on (top) during an Aston Martin (Paul's car's make but not colour) car crash scene (bottom). This scene is the same as the police van with its death head image inserted, but follows in time, because the van with the symbolic head or person to be carried away, perhaps, is present at the scene and the camera passes the van before showing why it is on the street.

The Free as a Bird music video is the only video on the official Beatles Youtube channel (see below) which is unavailable to watch there. It is available elsewhere, if one searches more actively for it.
 It has many Paul is Dead theme references -- including the death head which is an absolute planted clue, from optical forensic considerations, not merely symbolic ones. The song and video date from 1995, long after the 1969 brouhaha in the USA and abroad, about PID. Some persons even think there were no definite clues before that point. There are 4 definite clues, as was mentioned above, in the section Intro: the Rumours and "Clues" (use your browser to find this section using that title) -- they are there, for whatever reason. The head on the police van is one, but it is late. Even so, it is absolute. All clues in this 1995 video - absolute and not, --of course possibly were were created due to the 1969 PID scare.

... Don't make me cry.- Don't Pass Me By, Ringo Starr
Ringo Starr looking sad. Image not necessarily showing Ringo thinking of Paul dead, if PID was real. Image  cached here.

Sad-looking John Lennon, again included for effect, not for literal reasons. Image here.Title of book not related to PID in book author's mind, but included here for effect -- in case PID is real. There are several possible PID-related items George Harrison created in his life, perhaps as a joke or unrelated to PID, though, of course. One important example, however is that George wrote "Blue Jay Way", a mournful song for "Magical Mystery Tour" album and film. Though the song is set in Los Angeles, not London, the film segment and music contain many possible PID clues, including a dead-type body (not actually dead), a car crash (moments just before a car crash), and children wearing skull paint imagery, among other things in the film. The song may be about partying and danger from "shadowy" crime and corrupt official groups in Laurel Canyon, near where the street Blue Jay Way is, outside LA-- as well as, or instead of being about PID. Image from here.

The fool on the hill sees the Sun going down.- Fool on the Hill, Lennon-McCartney

Sir Paul (i.e., Paul, if they are the same man) plays the Fool on the Hill in the Magical Mystery Tour film version:
Film still of Sir Paul jumping during the Fool on the Hill music segment in the Magical Mystery Tour film, filmed sometime between Sept. 11-25, 1967 (September 11 being independently suggested by a "clue" as the date of Paul's demise or putative demise, and if it was, the film's scheduled start date for filming was the one-year anniversary of the death, which fits the death and resurrection theme and the many PID "clues" in it and the music). The PID-significant album was released Dec 8 (UK) -- 13 unlucky years to the day of John's shooting death. The movie was first shown Dec 26 (UK). Image film still from here.

Now as to the Sun going down ...Setting (or rising) Sun in the Lennon drawing. The dark item is not hair or a fool's cap. The cranium is depicted like an eggshell at the top, and like a simpler cut across it halfway down the head as well. The dots are gore (all over the face and hanging from the gap in the open angle). So the man is dead and the brains are spilling up and out, as if he is both standing and seen from top when lying down -- a mix of ideas. The dark mass in context alone, is not a fool's cap, therefore. But also, such caps have tassels at the end and this man has cracks at the brow with dots of gore there and on the face, not bells at the end of tassels out from the head..
But indeed, the man in the drawing does still have a setting Sun behind him like the Fool on the Hill in the song, and interestingly, the "Fool on the Hill" image below represents a possible head crack and other things associated with Paul.
Fool on the Hill cartoon scene in Magical Mystery Tour booklet, which came with the album. The song "Fool on the Hill" is on this record, sung by and played in the film of the same name by the putative second Paul. The film began shooting on exactly the date, a year after the commonest-held date on which Paul supposedly died, September 11, 1966. Could it be that the film was partly an honouring of the dead Paul's anniversary of passing? Maybe or maybe not, without any more information, but it certainly would fit commemorative needs for mourning, in case of a real death scenario.
The film aired the day after Christmas, 1967, but was shown in black and white, while whole scenes depended on colour for impact, and it was a disjointed storyline, so it was savaged, unlike the album.
Possibly coincidentally, the album of the same name, which therefore might also be partially a possible tribute album to a dead Paul, was released in the UK on 8 December 1967, an unlucky 13 years to the day on which John Lennon was killed.---He surrounded by symbols of life, death and comfort. For death, he has a grave under his feet and a shovel, and a probably setting sun. For life, we could interpret the sun as rising, and there is a comforting dog, as well as a flower shape. The dog, sun and flower (and even, in a sense, the stick of the shovel), could be present as a reinterpretation of the Tarot card, the Fool, which often shows these emblems, in a different context:

The Fool card is about paths in life, and a new start. It does imply endings, but they are over -- it is not the card of endings. And it is not about physical death in anything other than a stretched, extended metaphor.

The possible use of Fool card imagery, however, may, in turn, also be related to the idea of the Fool on the Hill in the Beatles song. Certainly, not in the song, unless it is the setting sun there, but in the accompanying booklet, there is a suggestion of a death -- for whatever reason -- as follows:

Yet the song has a wider meaning as well and this drawing is far more literal, so the drawing cannot be directly derived from the song, but could relate to a reason the song was itself written. And the dark matter coming from the split head cannot be a fool's cap, partly due to context (the accurate injuries) and partly because fool's caps have tassels, and bells at the end:

Image from here, cached here.

The dots here are all over and in a context of a doubly split head and somewhat dislocated eyeballs, so they must be gore. With a flattened effect from bone dislocation (to our top left) and flattened in the cracked effect at top, though up at an angle.Perhaps the fool image in the song and image above -- and maybe the Fool imagery added to the dead man in the drawing -- represent the real or imagined death of Paul, instead of that the death of Paul is derived from a Fool concept. This is especially true of the drawing, for the drawing cannot be "merely" the Fool on the Hill (or a Fool from somewhere else), with the most specific, almost diagrammatic, severe head injuries shown in any Beatles clue. In other words, the symbols redeem and expand the emotional tone of the death depicted in the drawing, but do not derive from the Fool theme.Of course, even if the song has PID clues, for whatever reason they were done (and-or the drawing has PID clues, too), the Fool song is also remains a humane song about understanding ourselves and each other, and about appreciation for timelessness or eternity.

So what is John seeing? What is he drawing, really?

A human version, smashed up, of this kind of concept:

Image for dead fish with dislocated eye, from here.

One song above links Walruses and Paul ("Glass Onion");another song links Walruses to gumboots and describes possible head injuries (and more: a cracked spine, a creepy finger -- from death, possibly) ("Come Together").

The drawing matches the gumboots and has literal head injuries matching the suggestive language for possible head injuries in the third song ("Come Together") -- confirming, by the complex associations that indeed, head injuries are the idea actually intended in the song.

Vice versa, the two songs together, now linked to the drawing through the head injuries and having short boots, confirm a specifically walrus identification on the drawing's gumboots and further, from that, a Paul identification, a PID identification on the drawing. (Of course, logically speaking, even if the songs had not existed, it might be possible that the drawing be of Paul, if Paul died at all, or if he did not. But the songs help an easier identification.)

None of this is a specific proof of Paul's death, of course.

There are many more things to discuss about this drawing, with other death imagery in the songs already named and others -- plus many more aspects of both the Paul is Dead circumstances and the Paul is Alive arguments, as well as, of course, forensic considerations wherever available.

The song "Come Together", now has been shown to be linked to the drawing's imagery at least, even if they were not done about a real PID situation.
That song also mentions a "monkey finger", the Walrus idea specifically (it is not shown on the face here literally as a walrus or as a full head injury effect, if that is what Walrus refers to), a cracked spine ("spinal cracker"), and monkey finger (creepy finger). While of course these are all deathly imagery when understood together and with the other statements, these images are not in the drawing. Why?

The answer has to be that, whether PID was a hoax or reality, this arguably PID drawing is sympathetic and simple in its treatment, and combines death ideas with life memories and ideas -- for whatever reason PID imagery exists.

 Monkey hands by Malkie Campbell (c. Malkie Campbell), top; Right hand 700-year-old mummy in China -- with ring -- bottom.

Death blackens and swells hands. Of course, over time, they also dry out, still dark coloured. Either way, the imagery of "monkey finger" is creepy.

There is also a famous story of a zombie returning to visit its mourning family, called "The Monkey's Paw", because of a magic monkey paw in the story, but also because of the same death hand associations:

Top image from here; bottom image from here.


No clue or false ear (Sir Paul wore false ears for years), is formal proof of anything about replacement of Paul or not, unless they were in fact done because Paul was replaced, and then colloquially speaking, they are tentative proof of it. Formally speaking, they are maybes; they contribute to a possible literal proof but only (in a formal sense) a pre-case, sort of like any items before police decide to issue a warrant to find out if anything more formal will turn up.

Of course, even in police work, this is the way it works.
Image by author.

Is the following just fun stuff, playing around because the Beatles donned moustaches, or did the Beatles don moustaches because the new Paul had to, and they were normalizing it, except for things such as the following, as clues?
How to be sure?

This photo on the right, from March 1967, appears the month after the first clue. (In fact the very first clue is also the first definite planted item among four. It is a direct textual reference to PID, but as a disclaimer, as if PID is a rumour. Was it?) Are the disclaimer, and this cover, related? Are they unrelated? Is the claim of a rumour also a lie, a joke? Was the rumour real but the theme taken on as a joke? Or is it all quite sadly trickery (like a joke, but not funny at root) about a real hidden situation of replacement of Paul? If it was the latter, using a photo of the putatively real (i.e., early) Paul and a false moustache would also serve to conflate -- mix -- the impression of the new Paul. Is that so? Maybe. Maybe not. The photo on the left is of Paul in 1965 or 1966. With his mouth open, and in three-quarter view, he particularly looks like himself later, or the double in a typical pose. Other images might not look as similar, according to PID advocates.

And what can facial hair do for our impression of the angle of a jaw, width of mouth, and so on -- especially fake facial hair, which in fact can droop in unnatural ways?
A lot, in fact.
Here is an example with real hair:

Image from here. Note angle and width of mouth (and jaw) and cheek. Photo manipulation or keeping a slack jaw can also give this impression a bit more.

Now in raising this, people will think the issue is moot, that their facial recognition and audial impressions are far more reliable than nice mathematical "optics games". But in some ways, they are not. We will discuss both issues in the preface which follows.

Anyway,once the literalist PID advocates noticed these, they of course seized upon them to say, "Do you notice you may need to open your perception more carefully."

But it was not what made them ask in the first place, of course. What made them ask  were the also not-absolute proofs using planted "clues".

So, what are these and why use a bunch of maybes to issue a metaphorical "warrant" to ask for direct forensic formal proof of what they already saw -- or thought they did, if they were wrong or crazy?
Well, police use maybes all the time. Clues, leads, proof, case are items and words which are used tentatively for a long time, even until the case is long past the warrant stage.

And still, it may lose and be wrong, and then we would call the clues, leads, proof, case wrong or false. But they are called that in the meantime.

We will also discuss perception; for only if there is room for 90 or nearly 100 per cent of people either not to notice, or to be fooled directly, or to excuse things away and become fooled, can this idea of Paul is Dead be real ever-- even if it turns out not to have been done!Is it even possible that 90 or 100 per cent of people could be tricked, who witness something?

Sadly, it is, though such situations are relatively rare, in spite of their being numerically very common, in a sense: there are many of them, but we interpret most events in our day correct enough to continue without a hitch. (Of course, sometimes missing a real fact actually helps us: ignorance is bliss sometimes, but not in a deeper sense.) Anyway, there are many optical or other assumption deceptions in life; we mistake audial phenomena and touch; we misunderstand motivations and do not realize when things work differently than we assume; we misread a friend's intention and an enemy's. Not all of these things are malicious, though some are deliberate; some are both malicious and deliberate.

Even if Paulie did not die ...
Most tricks do not even rely on base processes (direct eye or ear capacity, for example), but on our assumptions, even sub- or semi-conscious ones. Why? Our brains compare what they expect and know or "know" to be true with what is actually in front of us.

Our brains build overall experiences of reality; they do not merely absorb them.
Image from here.

Emotions play a large role, too: resistance to ideas can really hamper how well we process the information which fooled us, making it easier to fool us.
Emotions also, sadly, can hamper our ability to learn how we might be or were fooled.
Some people never believe they were, in fact, lied to (to take an example which is negative). Some resist learning how optics work (that might be a neutral one). And so on.


-----------There are a lot of false ears on Sir Paul, from at least early 1968 onward, possibly late 1967, or even in November-December 1966, right after the pro-PID advocates usually consider the most likely time for replacement.

Image for fun from here.

 It does not have to be obvious, to be a fake ear and leave a telltale shadowline with gaps. All it has to be is there. It is. Why? 
Were they worn because of major plastic surgery at 25 (or even 24, possibly), in the 60s, for vanity? A joke unrelated to PID? A PID joke? Covering real ears and PID surgery scars for PID?

Here are some of the same false ears and more of them.

Silhouette design found here.

Weird, or nothing at all?
The earliest clear false ear image in colour:
Image here. India, February 1968

The flap above is clear in same time period, India, February 1968, below.Black and white:

Images found here. This author does not endorse the general tone of the forum.

May 1968; no flap - better ear for general look of ear. (Will wear flaps again later; are they easier to keep on with flaps?Hair and large sideburn partly pulled over flaps most of the time.) But this one (21 screen shots, 7 below and the whole set later in article with more details about them), is from interview.

7 of the 21 screen shots, which are shown and discussed in more detail after the drawing information below.
The video sources are 2 copies of a Larry Kane May 1968 interview with John Lennon and (putatively) Paul McCartney, but definitely the same man as the current Sir Paul McCartney now. Source info given on last of 7 shots in this section.All angles of lighting natural. No reasonable presence of doctoring complexly.
There is a large, consistently present shadow gap through lower tragus and lower ear; bulge of false ear next to it. Particularly noticeable is the gap at lower tragus.This angle is excellent to understand the other screen shot positions.

Shadow on degraded video now looks almost linear; bulge shapes next to cheek on ear are more obvious with this lighting, but they can be discerned in the other angles. Strong gap at tragus now looks more continuous with other gap and bulge.

Later examples have also come to light. We will show them below. Because this example of screen shots, newly presented here is a full film example, from early on, and currently available, it confirms by association that the doubt cast on the other images, as having been faked, was mere prejudice, since also they show no signs of faking either.

Paul was putatively only age 25, if PID advocates are wrong, so that it was indeed Paul in May, 1968, when this interview was done. (The "original" or only Paul was born June 18, 1942.) PID advocates posit that the putative new bandmate was about 29 when he joined, for he says he is 30 -- in a joke? a bit of truth telling? in Magical Mystery Tour film, filmed in September 1967 -- about a year after he is supposed to have joined, and would therefore have been still 30 or just turned 31 in February 1968, for the month of his putative birth is not known even by a "clue".
Sir Paul as new person, or instead the original Paul, is suspected of being addicted to plastic surgery. Is the idea of "addiction" to it a cover story for necessary maintenance after having become a Beatle who had to also look more like Paul in a strange situation of secrecy? How weird and silly an idea. But was it done?

Even in much more direct light, when the bulge and gap between the lobe and tragus begins to disappear (though it is still there, if one looks very closely in the degraded video quality), there is still a huge puncture (really a gap) shadow through the lower tragus.The light on the lobe-to-tragus region shows a slight bulge along the "ear", and so does the tragus.
The fine line of shadow between the regions of the lower ear with also tragus, versus the cheek, demonstrates that there is a gap which sits close to the head. The tragus, however, shows the most serious gap. The angle of the head with the lighting shows us, if it were natural, an ear with bulges where an ear attaches to the head (not natural) a major gap in the lower tragus (unnatural), and a cut in the lobe up through to the tragus, which is too high cut even for a regular droopy lobe (which Paul did not have pre 1966; he had a lobe but it was semiattached, that is, only slightly droopy, which looks attached in some angles and droopier in others: he had a lobe, but it was fairly slight, enough that in most angles, it did not show much). In other words, for lighting and initial lobe considerations: this is a false ear.

This is a good plastic ear. Modern silicone methods would be better now and harder to detect optically, as a self-explanatory image (i.e., without comparison to a specific real ear it was mimicking). We can, that is, tell that this is a false ear from general considerations about all natural regular, undeformed ears -- which Paul McCartney had and (double or not) has today. In fact, even deformities would not do this this way, with a consistent bulge so finely along the cheek, and shadowline cuts into the skin there.


Why wear false ears so early and in the era before major plastic surgery was done on healthy young people? And if the real ears were different (they are unique as fingerprints, though sometimes hard to tell the differences), that would be another reason to wear fake ears.

What if? Or is it all too impossible?


This cannot be a piece of hair. The shadow is kinked and consistent for all lights. The gap is too wide. Is it doctoring? Not likely: some doctoring is actually impossible (to do without detection), it is consistent. There is no motivation from the average Youtuber. The videos have been up for some time. Can genuineness always be argued absolutely? No. Can fakes sometimes? Yes. This has the qualities of natural shapes of a false ear.
The 21 false ear screen shots cannot be well disputed, however, for whatever reason Sir Paul wears them. The source videos are completely unrelated to PID work, from all indications. Also, they are currently available (sourced). Finally, since this article has 21 screen shots, it means, prima facie, that I am not likely to have doctored them, even for those who might see this article after the video sources potentially get removed at some point in the future.


Are the false ears and moustaches (doctored and not) PID-related, to cover real ear differences and PID surgery scars,or to cover surgery of some vain nature, and make all bandmates conform to help a new bandmate undergo the switch by adopting moustaches but revealing false moustaches as clues -- and why clues? Are clues a way to atone emotionally, and done to get them off the hook in case of (fear of) being found out in other ways?Maybe not. Maybe.or a joke, related to PID or not related at all?If Sir Paul now is Paul McCartney from before late 1966, then he is 25 in the earliest false ear images.
The visually clearer and longer copy of the interview was posted second, in December 10, 2010 on Youtube, from a TV segment about Larry Kane's book, "Lennon Revealed"; the old film interview was part of the larger TV show. This longer copy, which shows false ears twice and most clearly, can be found here. An edited copy of the same TV segment (it leaves off the first few minutes of the interview), slightly blurrier, was posted first, April 3, 2010, by a different person (Youtube account), and can be found here. Neither seems to have anything to do with PID inquiries, nor does doctoring seem to explain the consistent and perfect shadow and light effects, integrated with the naturalness of the rest of each frame.
Paul pre-late 1966 has puffy cheeks in some expressions, but this angle on the putatively different Sir Paul seems maybe to indicate fillers used on the cheeks, with an unnatural result from certain angles.

Other False ears and then The Moustache question:

A possible or, given the record of lots of false ears, probable false ear, September 1967:

There seems to be a blocking item in this ear canal opening, and the ear "cartilage" or cartilage in general looks flat, even as if it is cut around the blocked area. Could the blocked area be for sutures and the rest of the ear sit on top of that? The lobe does not match the semiattached lobe of definite photos of McCartney, as we will see below in a comparison example.. Image from here (reload on page if does not show; sometimes that happens on that Website). This outfit is on Paul or "Paul" in the Magical Mystery Tour film, which was filmed Sept. 11-25, 1967, so unless this scene photo was unusually taken earlier or later, it is from roughly that time. Often, hairs are pulled over the ears in odd ways; he seems to wear false sideburns and wigs at times. But one way or another, the next examples are clearer.

More false ears:

Closeup on an early probable Sir Paul false ear, with emphasis of strange overlays, fromStrawberry Fields promotional film, 1967. If it is a false ear, it is the earliest clear image of one. Image from here.

This image is stunningly obvious. Sir Paul is wearing false ears in the late 60s and his ear gets so bentunder his earphones, that he must have forgotten he had false ears on! Strange. Image from here.

Image for fun from here.

 And more false ears (mostly later than 1969):

One example of many problems.Paul pre putative replacement. New bandmate post putative replacement (caught in a particularly different facial look; sometimes the two putatively different persons look rather similar overall). Did routine plastic surgery scars require false ears on the right (note bulbous attachment to head)? Or was the amount of surgery he was having due to changes to help with looking a bit more like Paul? The answer is not knowable from these photos alone. But it could be part of a literal PID situation.Images from here. Text not added by the author of this article; text added to images by author of source Webage.

Routine plastic surgery scars required false ears? Or was the amount of surgery he was having due to changes to help with looking a bit more like Paul? Not knowable from these photos alone. But it could be part of a literal PID situation.Images from here.

These images compiled here. Note naturalness of photos, each different. Bottom has huge antihelix (looks like a plastic surface); note here also the lobe's unnatural resting shape on head. Top images from a movie.

 Are all of these fake ears fakely added to the photos?
Not only is it unlikely, it would leave telltale faking signs, with such complex doctoring.

However, the images from the Larry Kane interview are by far the most complex
complete source: a full film and no faking errors, still available for source comparison.

Some of the others are not generally available now. Censored? Just unsourced by eager but,
in that sense, uncareful PID advocates, and the sources are now hard to find?
The author of this article does not know.
As mentioned above, it is possible that a person can wear false ears for a joke, too. But in fact, false ears would be required in a PID scenario (to cover plastic surgery constantly and hide real ear shape differences). So now we can state more authoritatively, even if we do not take the pro-PID position in the end, that a historic lack of false ears does not stand in the way of PID (as if the lack of false ears were an alibi).


Moustaches very late 1966 through mid-1967 - A major image change for all

Image from here.

Now what about those famous Sergeant Peppers album era moustaches, November 1966, through early summer 1967?
They were not fake -- well, most were not.
What were they for? Nothing? Then why doctor earlier pictures with fake ones -- to make a point? Or as a joke?

This one is real. Eventually, they all sported real ones, at least everyone other than Sir Paul or Paul, by very late 1966. Sir Paul or Paul's, however, was at first seemingly fake.
And images were doctored, possibly to confound the situation -- or to leave a lead, a clue, even if it was all a joke.
Here is John in his real one, in early or mid 1967:

Image found here.

Real moustaches on Sir Paul, Ringo, John, early to mid 1967. Image from here.

Again for fun: Fake moustache wearing moustache. Image from here.

Image from here.

This photo from March 1967 appears the month after the first clue, in fact in its case, also the first definite planted item among four. The first clue about Paul's death, as an idea, disclaims that it happened, but states there is a rumour of it. Is that, and this cover, related? Are they unrelated? Is the claim of a rumour also a lie, a joke? Was the rumour real but the theme taken on as a joke? Or is it all quite sadly trickery (like a joke, but not funny at root) about a real hidden situation of replacement of Paul? If it was the latter, using a photo of the putatively real (i.e., early) Paul and a false moustache would also serve to conflate -- mix -- the impression of the new Paul. Is that so? Maybe. Maybe not. 
The moustache above looks fake, and the one below possibly. These are very early photos of the putatively new Paul at about the time of the promotional film for the song, "Strawberry Fields Forever", which was filmed at the end of January, 1967. They are from very early 1967, or even December 1966. Exact dates for the photos unavailable to the author at this time.

John Lennon with a pencilled-in moustache. This doctored photo appeared in early 1967. Why? If PID advocates are right, it was to confuse the issue of how important moustaches were for confusing the similar but different look of the putative new Paul: all Beatles would change looks. At the same time, pencilling in moustaches also constitutes a kind of clue in grief, early on, if this literalist PID stuff is correct.Images above found here.Image found here. Included here for "fun", because it uses ear and moustache.The other photos of Beatles were doctored to have moustaches: George below and John and the "real" Paul, above.The likely earliest film (TV) of the new bandmate, if he is one, shows him at one point seeming to try to hide the fact he seems to need to put back on a falling fake moustache back on while speaking (circa December, 1966). A screen capture from that is first, below:
Note: a clue or mistake was left in this one of George: only the George in the mirror has a moustache.Image from here. This is from Beatles Monthly February, 1967 (issue #43). That is one month before the fake moustache on Paul, but also is the very issue with the earliest PID reference clue, the disclaimer in text, and the first of the provably planted items definitely also in the PID theme (text reference as tautologically knowably planted on the theme: the words are definitely there about a death of Paul -- for whatever reason). The moustache on George also has to be doctored into an earlier photo without one, but it is not definitely a PID clue. Like John's above, George's moustache is pencilled in. Paul's in the image far above, is added probably with paint.Last few images above: collected here.The drawing of a fake moustache is from the Sergeant Pepper album (often thought to be putatively the firstput out after the new bandmate entered the band). The insert emphasizes cut-outs (a metaphor?),a fake moustache, military details (possibly indicating help or interference from policeand intelligence services?). These are ruminations some pro-PID advocates have suggested.

Forensics? What is the overview of those?
And forensics, for the specific case? Let us note that right off the bat, the idea of DNA and fingerprints is a problem for resolving the issue -- and often dismissed as unnecessary to ask for, anyway:
Just try to get that sort of evidence to resolve the issue either way. Who, who has early Paul McCartney possessions, could prove fingerprints were his, even if they could have unadulterated fingerprints? Who would sneak up to get the current Paul's DNA or a McCartney family member's DNA to test? How could those be proven to be each of theirs (chain of custody)? Who would ruin the dream if they knew PID was literally true and could do these things? These are just some of the problems with thinking about DNA and fingerprints for proof.
All official sources for anything like that are private or currently confiscated, it seems. DNA is suggestive that there was a replacement, perhaps, if we use the Bettina German paternity case, but because Bettina herself could be lying and no comparison was done with known McCartney family members, the case centred around her and Paul or "Paul", which begs the PID question entirely, for it requires third-party confirmation of her or his McCartney status, not of her lineage from Paul nownecessarily. (And what happened to her fraud charges? Is she the fraud? Or was she quieted with a payout? Or was her claim thrown out because Paul did the tests but his own identity is wrong but PID remains putatively true? There is no further information.)
Ears are forensic and teeth and bone proportion if properly assessed, even in life (not only at the famous "body farm" from literal bone measurements). Do we have these indications?
Do we even need to ask? Will we bother?
What interesting questions will arise during the investigation -- as a learning process about argument, perception, openness, history study?

Image here.

But always, it is important to remember:
the clues, leads, case in general are called that colloquially as a possibility set. Calling them that does not have to truly presuppose a result; it gives a working definition a chance.

Let us look at the maybes, without explaining them away. Giving how they might not be true PID literally, does not mean they are not PID literally, in most cases. So we will hold onto both possibilities.

 Is the top man (top 3 photos) the same man as in the bottom 3 photos of a man?The case, or possibly the nutty idea, for saying they are not the same, is called "Paul is Dead" or "PID". (Top photos of Paul, 1966, 1964, 1966; bottom photos of the putative new bandmate, very late 1966 or earliest part of 1967 -- before much plastic surgery could be done, and closer in date to what Paul looked like when he died, went away, or was murdered, if the PID hypothesis is literally true.) Very silly idea, or not, we can look at it.

----Maybe. One of many maybes.

Yes, it could all be a joke or some serious spiritual commentary on Paul's transformation after taking drugs, a metaphoric death. But we are asking about the maybe that it is literal -- just to see what happens.

It turns out, upon careful consideration, that there is no historical thing definitely in the way of saying Paul died, no "alibi" for the surety most people feel, that the early Paul is still with us in our current Paul McCartney. But that does not prove anything.

And we know for sure. Or do we?

Can you be sure that YOUR perceptions are the right ones? Can anyone? How? And why do some resist direct evidence in other cases which have this problem, even so?

This question goes beyond PID -- either way.


What would make us ask about this stuff?
First: Is the imagery (idea) of Paul is Dead not even there in the Beatles' repertoire? No. As we have remarked, there is a theme, in general.Some mistakes by researchers aside, is the idea, if it is really there as a theme, also fairly easy overall to note?Yes.Why there is a theme is a different question, again, of course,but yes,the theme is there and mostly easy to note.

Second:There are not even any definite clues (ideas).Right?No. There are.Four clues are of a type which is not merely thematically provable, but optically (forensically) three have to be planted, and one is overt in text (though it is a mention as a disclaimer), so it also has to be planted.

But many other items are fairly obvious and in the theme, as well. Not everything is really hard. Though, yes, there are some mistakes and probable indefinite items in the history of PID thematic searching, as well, however. That means, there are some sort-of "crazy" -- or maybe just wrong -- conclusions of what are clues, too.

So ...
Again why ask if there is anything which could settle it?
Well, let us note, for accuracy, that one might begin to ask, at least, why there are four thematic clues which happen to be of a very specific type which submits them to different analysis, so they can be shown to be formally definite planted clues (ideas).

Four."Four sons of Horus" from Egyptian mythology. Represented in their mummy form. Image from here.

Three of this type of "clue" -- "clue", here, meaning planted idea, for whatever reason -- that is, three of the type of item which is not only thematic, are from very early after the putative replacement: in earliest and middle 1967, right after the usual date given for the putative replacement. One is from 1995.
The one in text (the defensive disclaimer), is from February 1967 Beatles Book monthly fan magazine.Two in image are the much misunderstood "OPD/OPP" (Officially Pronounced Dead/Ontario Provincial Police) arm patch on Sir Paul, from the Sergeant Pepper album inner cover (gatefold), officially released June 1967 (produced earlier). An OPP patch was used, because it is easy to doctor to an OPD. Most think there was only one OPP/OPD patch image. In that main image, we must note that a fold or cylinder distortion (an arm) does not foreshorten (perspectivally alter) a P into a D shape; with a dot next to it, to help, there is a possibility, but not if the dot is as far away as this one would be, judging by the other letters and dots, and with the degree of folding involved (which is not much). In other words, the image is doctored. But not only is there the regular version; there an OPD/OPP patch, which is a different version of the patch and shows a fully frontal OPD. (This is an item little known in its own right, but also reinforces what mathematical perspective laws already tell: the more well known version is doctored -- for whatever reason.) Perhaps the full frontal version comes from an earlier or private edition image of the same photo or album?The last one, also an image, is from the 1995 "Free As A Bird" video, and shows a death head looking like Paul, in or on the back window of a stationary 1960s black police van, before a scene of a 1960s car crash. The death head has to be added, and cannot be a leafy reflection, as it is made somewhat to resemble, because the camera is panning and there is no blur. Even reflections will blur from camera movement. This item has to be planted, also therefore, though it is after the 1969 PID brouhaha in the USA.We will discuss these, but first, here are the images of each, with brief comments:


Small disclaimer regarding the idea of Paul's having died. Published for whatever reason -- as a real disclaimer of a rumour or not, to plant the idea or respond to a rumour and deflect the date and reality -- in February 1967 edition of Beatles Book Monthly fan magazine (then UK-only). [Image cached here, from this blog page]

Two (a rare item) and Three (a common item, often misconstrued):

1. Full frontal OPD Sergeant Pepper patch. 2. Common gate-fold image of the 4 Beatles fading out. The full frontal OPD and face are from an early but unsourced PID film. (Date of original film guessed only, as probably 1969-1975, because of film image quality. Image in that film is also unsourced. Current usage of the clip is within "Rotten Apple 47 2" video, Youtube, uploaded Aug. 20, 2007 by filmmaker "Iamaphoney". (Filmmaker's pseudonym plays on the idea that Sir Paul is a Phoney Paul.)  Source of full frontal image of OPD and Beatles must be from another Beatles Sergeant Pepper gate-fold, less well known, or a promo item.
3:  Close-up of full-frontal OPD image with finger which enters frame and points, taps on image. --- 4.:  Image of the common gate-fold image. This is the much-debated patch. The OPD letters have been slightly altered in angle and possibly enlarged a tad. Note that without shortening the P by folding the P downward, it could not create a D, and though the period (dot) is supposed to contribute to the "D" shape, it cannot naturally be so close to the stem of the P in a soft fold like this. Thus we have an impression that the D could form naturally, but it is an illusion mathematically. --- 5.: An old OPP patch from attempted debunker site here, images cached here and here, respectively. The attitude of the debunkers was that because the patch originated as OPP, it remained OPP in the gatefold. Of course, it was a shocker to many to learn of the OPP patches at all, originally, so this did create confusion for years, and for some, to this day. There are actually several types of OPP patches. It is uncertain to this author which exact years the two gatefold images are from.
Note also: The image of the face is faded in, and Iamaphoney does this a lot, to hide definites among maybes. Why hide anything at all? If there is a faction fight (so to speak) and any threats or fears of revealing a real PID situation, he may be -- and in fact has claimed to be -- under pressure not to be too direct. Is this possible at all? Some anti-Paul is Dead advocates say, "No." These particular PIA (Paul is Alive) advocates take a very extreme view of the wish to reveal a death; not all PIA advocates are so naïve about what is likely when into the mix we must count, potentially, big money, ego, fear and dissociation from fans versus protecting a general legacy for the band.
He plays games with viewers at times, but never enough to completely mislead; when he shows something edited out of sequence, for example, it gives an effect of how one might feel if one had footage which filled in that piece of a real PID situation. Everything else which is actually checkable at all, provides solid information. That is not true of "Paul Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison" film, which has some glaring inaccuracy, to the point of spoof or disinformation -- something cover-up artists would want to pay for, to this day, if PID were correct.
ConclusionFor whatever purpose it was done, there is a planted full-frontal OPD image for Sergeant Pepper, which was well known enough in the early period after 1969 -- judging by film quality of the clip which Iamaphoney presents -- to be presented as proof of "clues", in a PID-theme film. The PID film source is unknown to this author, but the overall quality of the film and shadow indicate authenticity of the image. Somehow, only the other album image (4th figure from top) is now often seen.

This image is from a 1960s police van, just before a 1960s car crash scene, in the 1995 video "Free as a Bird", where most scenes are about Beatles history. The camera is panning, the van is parked, that is, it's still, yet panning would blur still objects in or on the van and leafy reflections. The impression that this is a natural reflection of leaves or a head in the van is optically forensically impossible. For whatever reason, this image has to have been inserted into the scene.
Note the appropriate camera-movement blur on the parked van (the word "Police" on the upper right is the most obvious blur in this cropped image). Like the situation with the P to D above, in the common gatefold patch image from the Sergeant Pepper album, where the period or dot gives an impression of naturalness which is impossible, so, too, with this death head above, seem to be made up of leafy shapes and we remember that walking by a reflection does not blur the reflection, and moving objects but still cameras will not blur a reflection. So we get an impression in the mind that this image is possible. It is not: cameras give blur when panning and this camera is giving a lot of blur, to everything else, by comparison. How do such impressions happen? Speed and composite memory get compiled, conflated in us, and we assume we are right when we are wrong.
The head resembles Paul. As to context: Just after this, the scene is of an a car crash, already having occurred. John Lennon, mid-1960s in looks, is in the crowd looking on (added by using computer graphics). The car crash in the scene involves an Aston Martin, Paul's make (but not colour) of car in the mid-'60s.

Here is a bit more on that last so-called clue, in context:The following images are from the Free As A Bird video. The death head in the police van has no blur, though the camera is panning -- so even a leafy reflection, which this mimics, would blur. The head looks somewhat like Paul.

Did Paul look somewhat like this in death, if he died? Note the eye in shadow seems torn from its socket or swollen -- as we will see also in the John Lennon drawing below -- and the torn-looking, "walrus-like" mouth, as if the walrus idea was somehow linked not only to Paul, as John Lennon admitted sometimes, but also to a violent death look? Are these features of the image below suggesting literal aspects of a Paul death -- for whatever reason?

John Lennon inserted into crowd scene at crash right after the police van panned image above. John is shown as he looked in very late 1966 or early 1967. Though Paul putatively died before John started looking like this, it is a close match in period, linking not only the putative death date in a general "late 1966" sense with what happened just afterward, if PID is literally true.Though there is no solid lead even in clues as to where Paul putatively died -- some clues identified or seemingly identified already in 1969, suggest a car crash. The 1995 Free As A Bird video's car crash scene in England could be indicative or simply a copycat idea based on 1969 thinking about PID. We would not know unless we could determine that he did get replaced, reasonably assume from that that he actually died also (did not go into hiding), and could learn where he died and how in some other way. For now, though, talking of a car crash -- intentionally set up or accidental -- is the commonest form of means of death suggested in PID literalist discussions.

This 1995 video is also the only music video which is unavailable now for viewing and of course also for downloading on Youtube, at the Beatles official Youtube site now. (Written on August 3, 2013. Unsure which date it became unavailable.)
Is this a restriction of people's more passively, easily noticing the so-called "clues", now that George is dead and Ringo is alone -- if there were 3 Beatles after Paul's putative death, but Ringo and George were around when the video was made? Maybe. Maybe not.

All four definitely planted "clues" are fully discussed in the main article's "Introduction" section, with full screen shots also of the 1995 video, which has many more thematic-only clues. For Free As A Bird 1995 screen shots, do a page search on this article, for: video possible and definite PID "clue" screenshots -- to jump there. The 4 definite clues from 1967 and the death head in the 1995 video are discussed above that set of screenshots.

The other clues in the theme are not of these types; they are thematic but usually fairly blatant. Some mistakes or unknowns also litter the material, however. But the theme is real.

As we mentioned above, there are also many false ears on Sir Paul all through the Beatles period after the putative switch, from probably early 1967 (in the Strawberry Fields movie, which shows a side view close up).
These would be required for covering real ears (a telltale difference between people, like fingerprints, though some persons' ears are close in shape and harder to tell differences from). They would also be required at the time to cover plastic surgeries -- which cannot work miracles but could increase cheek roundness or reshape jawline muscle a bit.
But people can wear false ears for other reasons than that they are impersonating someone.
The images are from many sources and time periods, and one shows truly bent forward falsies, would not really be able to be faked in the image without looking bizarre -- as distinct from the fact that the ear bent forward looks bizarre emotionally when we notice.

This image is stunningly obvious. Sir Paul is wearing false ears in the late 60s and his ear gets so bentunder his earphones, that he must have forgotten he had false ears on! Strange. Image from here.

Why not skip the "clues" themes entirely?

Are so-called clues entirely dismissable as being subjective weirdly looking for patterns in, seeing what you want to see?

This really begs the question to whether looking for patterns  itself, is seeing what you want to!
Themes are patterns.Not all patterns are subjective.
For instance, if some things are statements and some are ordinary imagery of those statements, and the visual or audial images are used as the statements suggest one ought, then the themes as patterns are set by logic. If I mention a fire engine by name, put a fire engine type of alarm into a song, and draw a fire engine, this is hardly a subjectively interpreted theme.

Top image, of 1960s fire engine toy truck from here. Middle image by author. Bottom video fire engine siren source from here.

They are determinable from each other, by mere straightforward logic. They are a pattern, and one can note them, look for them, want to find them and in fact they are there!

"Of course," one might say?"But PID clues are different!"
Actually, a lot of them are not.They are, in fact, not a mere list of imagery, it is true. But they are actually even stronger as a theme, for they involve, in many instances, bolstering and interconnected imagery with each item in the list of supposed PID images.
How so?
A statement will appear with other statements, and a visual image will contain most of the other items mentioned with it.
So they are interconnected, sometimes in a couple of associative layers, but not hard to notice.The image is given, the name Paul associated with it in other places, and the image otherwise is always with some imagery of death or personal items Paul loved.
Easy imagery puzzle from here.
This kind of pattern is actually not too hard to see, find, identify, and is not necessarily a pure game.To find parts of a reference supported by other parts related to that reference, recurring in a person's thoughts, occurs in ordinary speech, art and music all the time.
But this kind of imagery, for John Lennon, is otherwise strange.
However, back to the way this works as a theme:
If one were not merely "revealing a sneaky weird thing", but simply writing and imaging an event, some of these associative ideas would function this way anyway. So some of these items, even if PID were literally true, might well not have been added as a pure hide and seek, in guilt, so to speak.

But, yes, in any coverup situation, human beings do strain to tell things carefully, cleverly, as well.

For example, added to an image of Paul from before the putative switch are two lines from Lennon songs:
(A gumboot is a common nickname for a black leather, or "Wellington" boot. The Beatles popularized a middle-short style for a while.)
In those songs are other images, often questioned as to what they refer to, but seemingly about sickness or death and damage to a head and eyes.
And the drawing we will be discussing contains no word for Paul, and does not use the image of a walrus, but has, instead, the gumboot and fits the other imagery from one of the songs for damage to the head and eyes -- of someone:

Plus, the drawing is particularly accurate about injuries to the head, further refining the song imagery.

What if? Or is it all too impossible?
There may still be misidentifications (such as when someone hears something unclearly or sees a meaningful shape in an image where it is fuzzy or truly weird, as in, interpreting a pure scribble, as a Rorschach test asks us to do.)
"Scribble monster", by Jane Massey. Source here.Knowing the title, recognizing overall shapes for hands, body, eyes, mouth and shadow are tautological themes in the drawing indicating that a "being" like a human is intended. Reading into the scribble shapes themselves, due to the looseness and the general silliness of the image, would be where finding "patterns" or "meaning" would be spurious, personal, subjective.

When we are told an image (in words, visual demonstration, or sound) means something and then it is consistently used by that person, and other images used with it have hardly misinterpretable themes (such as death and sickness) it comes with -- well, then the theme or pattern is real.

What it "means" the larger sense, such as, whether it is literally talking of a crime, death, event is another thing.

This is a "big picture" meaning.
But ...

what it "means" ... of itself, to itself, within the theme an imagery set, is not up for debate. Death and walruses, walruses and Paul, walruses and gumboots, real gumboots (a common English nickname for short Wellington black leather boots) and Beatles (in history, they wore such boots), death heads and walruses, death heads and Paul, death heads and gumboots, death heads and car crashes, car crashes and grief:

these are a theme of death and Paul, and that far, are hardly a "subjective" exercise.
They are a real pattern of meanings in real imagery. But yes, what they "mean", that is what they indicate or do not indicate in terms of history is another thing.

General meaning is thus to be determined separately than the thematic meaning. They may match (in a literal PID situation), or they may not (if PID is a joke, hoax, or symbolic death to an "old persona" for Paul).

But:As to that further point, that is, the theme's history "meaning" in the larger sense -- that is, whether the pattern theme we did in fact find is literal, and Paul is replaced --
we now can say that here perceptions are iffy both ways!
The theme is not iffy,
but the perceptions we haveof Paul himself or of "Paul's replacement" himself may in fact be iffy, or may not be iffy!Image from here.

Some will note the irony.
The clues as PID ideas are really there, for whatever reason.Yet simply going on perception, we can say that the man we assume is Paul may not be "really there" as the same identity.
Most people assume the situation is the other way around.

Ha, strange but true. H'm. Illustration using sculpture's facial expression for such a feeling here. (Labelled by the artist as meaning a "smug" expression, but to this author, the expression seems to look more surprized and aware of a new thought, so it is included here, just for fun.)

That is, on the one hand, the theme of PID is literally there. It is "true", as in, it is "truly there as a theme", or, put another way, there is an obvious and tautologically present theme from some so-called "clues" items. (The "clues", though are only maybes as "real clues for an historical truth.")
Yet on the other hand, people's correctly seeing visual sameness or difference in Paul or "two Pauls" (two items or one), when they are seen at different times with different cameras, and where the viewers make different assumptions of what is possible (doubles or not) for a group (a mere band or a fearful group of people in a band) is something we can wonder about as being an example of subjective interpretation!

Strange, yes? H'm! Indeed.

But is the idea of PID itself as real, real?That is, are they about a literal death and replacement, something unknown formally as to its actual truth value, or is it ridiculous (a hoax for money or symbolic transformation, or macabre humour) or is it outright impossible?Did Paul die?Can we know either way, formally?Do we know formally already? Should we ask?

So deriving the idea into a rumour, if that is what happened, is not itself always a crazy act. Taking this author's word for that at the moment (though we will delve into this almost immediately) ...

If it is not the rumour itself which is thus truly crazy, is the idea Paul actually died which is crazy?Maybe. Well, it certainly is odd and would be unusual.But is it impossible?This means nothing stands in the way from history, in postulating it now, and people's perceptions cannot differ from the supposed reality -- maybe even revealing that people have been fooled, but maybe not.

We will have to go through the history to see if nothing stands in the way of it (an alibi, sort of), and we will have to discuss perception.

 So, does the drawing signify anything?Maybe. Maybe not.Let us look at the general ideas around PID for a moment.

Image found here.

Did John lie?And others, to this day?No, surely.What about forensics?
We will get to the forensics questions, but they are subtle in a formal sense, either way, as sometimes happens even in a court case. All else is perception: "I see it," vs "I do not."

Preposterous -- surely. Besides, so many do not see a difference in Paul.

Well, the problem with statistics there is:Whether or not Paul was replaced --Unfortunately, a person does not have to look alike, just relatively similar, as some people do, especially if they learn body language and some vocal habits; and a person does not have to sound alike, just sound similar in some song moments and different in others.In such a case, the statistics reveal nothing but perceptual error, if Paul was replaced.This can happen and does happen in many other situations, including when human doubles are real (say, political ones, which are well known to occur in general).

Sadly, whether or not Paul was replaced, until a person learns how the brain actually processes information, that person will not understand how often fooling works.

So, long before we can get more into whether anything stands in the way, in history or perception as error for most people, that is, long before we consider if there is historical and perceptual room for it as a postulate we could make from now ...
What would cause or allow this to be actually caused then?That is, could anything lead at the time to its being done?Conditions under which things happen are important.

"Age 6: 'I'm staying up all night!" / "Age 23: 'Oh God, I'm staying up all night."Image "CotD no. 043 - Bed Time (then vs. now)" by ajchon, from here.

Thinking about this in short form (we will cover both sides of all the aspects as we go), we may note:
Though the following does not mean it was done in fact,

if it was done, we have to know that we can be fooled (though it is unusual, sure).someone must have had to come up with the odd idea (a Paul-like fellow makes sense, for the impression of the band and its music too, to remain somewhat acceptable to the public, if Paul died, but sure, the extra step of quietly taking on the role so literally, though not exactly -- no-one could do that -- is certainly odd).great fear and being thrown for a loop must have been required in such a scenario, to drive the group and its backers and hangers-on and Paul's family to something like this, and would have had to hit John, the leader of the group, especially hard (but in fact, yes, he tended to delegate authority at times of stress, and was already heavily into drugs, according to his wife, Cynthia, in her books).

And then it would have snowballed (this is merely logical for most lies and liars, that they usually do not "fess up" or not directly, plus money and new power and time would wear down any resistance for many, while others might be threatened and be unable to prove it or even not want to).it would require likely intelligence service and police assistance for paperwork and -- hopefully not, but quite possibly -- their own and Beatles' powerful backers' threats (how implausible? or would it be quite normal, in powerful money and national public relations, to have such people around big media arts acts?).

And maybe it would be suggested in the first place by such intelligence persons, wanting to help or for other reasons, since the idea would not be so alien to them.
Whew! What ideas! Whoa. But yes, this scenario would make it possible. Not likely in general, but possible.

Image by author.

Unfortunately, whether Paul died or not, no, it is not impossible from these considerations. Not from these. We will cover each, of course, in more detail to show that more fully.
So, yes, we will discuss each point (and more) on both sides of these arguments, but in general, we can tentatively say it is not impossible.
Now of course we all know (do we not?) that: none of these considerations means Paul was in fact replaced. We are merely pointing out what would mean a real causation could happen -- that is, what would be the way somehow that historical events could make it happen.
We are not saying it is likely history;we are saying just what are likely causal mechanisms if it was history.

Thirty per cent chance ten times does not equal -- logically rigorously speaking -- a three-hundred per cent chance.
But it is a maybe: if each is counted as a 100 per cent reality in its own right, then a group of them make one larger, 100 per cent reality.
In other words, if each item's thirty per cent chance is the real deal each time, it is 100 per cent the thing we noted at 30.
And if we need certain 100 per cent things (i.e., items which are real), to make another thing, another 100 per cent real thing, then indeed, all those 30 per cents flip over to real, and the total they suggested is real.
Right? Of course.
We treat each maybe as if it were one side or the other. We do not forget that both the yes and no are maybes. We can always look for definites (forensics) or back out (though for thoroughness we should not). We can accept when something renders the idea impossible (like an alibi in a suspect's court case)  but we must be careful what we accept as a true impossibility.
Anyway, we actually learn from the maybes, adding new types of maybes to look for, and definites to seek out. But we treat them as yesses while looking, or we do not know what connections might be.
Too many persons (when they resist an idea, particularly) want to keep mentioning that something is not proof".
If it is a maybe, it is not neutral and temporarily it is part of a proof maybe so it is counted.
We do the following in our mind when we hypothesize and when we solve something for real.
Here is a demonstration with 50% chance for each "clue".

 Image by author.If each maybe is a 50% chance, and there are 10 of them that does not make a500% chance.If each maybe changes to a certainty, of being a 100% chance, this does not make a 2,000% chance (adding the 50% to the other 50% for each item), nor does it make a 1,000% chance if each item as 100% is added together. No, it all collapses the final time into a 100% chance as a new whole, as if there were no parts.

 "Why does this happen? -- The 50-50 is actually one way or another: 0% chance or 100% chance. -- So when any flip to answer the question definitely one side or the other, all do, or suddenly become irrelevant as mistakes (items which led one to the conclusion mistakenly). -- Irrelevant suddenly on one way or irrelevant suddenly on the other way."Image by author.

We will discuss where the so-called (that is, tentatively assumable) clues fit in finding a literal proof.We will cover where the literal proof would or could or has come from, and whatever side it is on.

Let us think, though, for a moment, about the first maybe:The Beatles were a mere band, right?No.They were a particular "band" -- of friends, a tight-knit group musically, for each other, and in the public mind.

And they were a phenomenon ... never before or in many ways since, equalled:
Image from here. Cached under name "basiut-mccartney".

So if one of them, particularly John or Paul died, could -- not did, but could -- the Beatles and their circle have feared that a Fab 3 or New 4 would not fly with the public?
Could they be so afraid of us? Of our rejection economically and artistically?Maybe.
Maybe not, of course. A lot of tribute songs to Paul might have done well. But a New 4 or Fab 3 is likely what they would have been called, and perhaps there could have been great fear of us and anger about the possible future rejection, as well as traumatic overwhelm, if Paul died.


For whatever reason,
as we noted before, clues (so-called clues) as thematic references mounted for years, showing up in some easy and some tricky ways. As we mentioned above, four of them happen to be of a type where one can prove their implantation into the record, by using more than thematic considerations.

Should we bother to ask why all those clues were planted -- the specific ones where a test other than thematics shows they were planted, and the many others by strong, even detailed theme?Is it a joke, money ploy, symbolic transformation (death as metaphoric rebirth) idea?Could John and others have lied in a weird pinch, family deciding loyalty to the dead is best by allowing a band to continue when it might have seemed the public would not accept a "Fab 3" or "New 4", and the whole thing snowballed, until no-one would reveal it on their own?What would make this possible?Was it risky? Could it work?

And does this mean that some people would be keeping their mouths shut (lying by omission) to this day?

Oh no! Wait a minute:Would this include even, or especially, the lovely secretary and friend to the Beatles, Freda Kelly, focus of the new film "Good Ol' Freda" (ironically, a film which mentions in its trailer that she kept the Beatles' secrets, which were many, of course, even without PID's maybe being one of them ... and whose poster actually shows the most famous early PID switch photo, if PID literally is right: the inner album cover image of the "new" set of Beatles on Sergeant Pepper album, with Freda looking a bit surreptitious at the bottom of the film poster, maybe? maybe not?)

Image from here. Green highlights added for effect -- of a maybe about PID as an issue in the band.The movie is excellent, and highly recommended by many, Beatles fans and non-fans alike. It is about the whole ten years she helped and was friends with the Beatles.

How silly that Freda would not say something if PID were true! How preposterous!And she does not mention the idea at all, either, because, of course, it is too preposterous to mention!

Maybe? Maybe not.
So ... How can we know, formally?Eventually, we will cover what or whether there is anything, which we can know directly, to solve the issue either way.
But first ... those false ears. Strange or not? The drawing ... meaningful or not? What kind of thinking would ever consider such things part of a case, even to lead to a case?
Can our perceptions lie that much?

And if it were true that Paul died ... Did John wake up more to lies, big and small, because he lied, too?
"Remember I would touch your face like this?" -- "Remember when you were alive and I would touch it just like this?" -- [Silence.]Image from hereIllustration by Kyle Parker of Have Some Hats   Writing by Dale Beran of A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible

Strange thoughts? Paranoid?
Stupid? Wrong? Right?



Well, what have we covered so far?

 Image from here.

Image found here.....................

Does the overall hand-eye co-ordination style of the drawing support our treating the lines as some kind of Rorschach test or shape-finding exercise, like cloud-watching for clues? No. The lines are jagged and loose wherever an idea of inaccuracy is okay (loose earth below, or jumbled shapes on the lower portion of the upper head, or on the arms, belt, body as we will see).
The salient features of the drawing must be kept in mind: this is a severely injured and somewhat diagrammatic head. But since no-one has a true eggshell head, therefore, in simplifying the wounds, the mind (of John) chose a rather wonderfully succinct way of showing the wounds he wanted to show for whatever reason he wanted to show them,
Once one has set up some shapes (the various eggshell splits, top and side-to-side), one must loosely rough in other portions as well, but these are unable any longer to be literally visually accurate. For instance, are the squiggles on the left and right upper portion hair, skin, bone? All and none. They become lines of completion. They do not match the lower portion anymore, so the gap in the face on the left is required. This is common in art; sometimes ideas drive the look of something, not literal visual representation. But along the way, enough is given of literalness to indicate what the idea fits onto in the real world, so there are eyelids, there is squiggly hair as a suggestion with gory splatted effect, in the squiggle lines on left and right of the upper head, and disturbed earth is not given true light and dark shapes with perspective, just squiggles.
"Scribble monster", by Jane Massey. Source here.There are many parts of the drawing which are loose: the body has simpler lines (shoulders) but most of it which the pen has gone over or near several times loosely, as we will see. In context of that, it is inappropriate to do a shape-finding exercise on what each squiggle reminds one of -- if one is tempted, as some are. Clues are often hidden, but when they are, they are coherent. A hand doing squiggles cannot control them perfectly, without practise and within a general emotional looseness, so some things are not intended as shapes which mean anything, and can be determined to be part of a general looseness.


ASIDE (and then the drawing compared to some text in songs):
INTERESTING FACTS about arguments:

The broader questions are not even only about PID:
how did we get led to ask it;do we dare ask it;why not, besides feeling it is silly;are there ways we can recognize when our feelings about something must be repressed;when ought we to listen to our feelings;what is objectivity and when is it warranted;what is speculation and where is it appropriate;how do we get fooled and fool ourselves -- even if Paul did not die?
As such, we will go through the case enthusiastically, that is, dedicatedly seriously, to prove its broader aspects up to the point of final proof (forensics) and then cover what we have for that.

Even FORENSICS do not answer the BROADER ISSUES of PID, either:
- Why was the hoax done, if we find it has to be a hoax -- formally find that it does?
- Where is Paul buried, if we find formally that he died?- What went on to cover this up, if it was covered up?- How does psychology work in a not evil form of coverup (that is, a "plot in a pinch" as distinct from a malicious plot, though there are parts of the same feelings in both, with go along to get along and people trying to speak out a bit and people trying to ignore what has happened and move on)?- How do threats and coercion and power plays, even temporary ones, function in a group, especially one which is not usually an abusive bunch of people?- Do intelligence services and police lie? And if they ever do, how does that function? And do they also feel go along to get along about a coverup? Do they have any interaction with the arts industry (for example, music industry) which is negative -- or even helpful but a public lying function?


More about the drawing:

 It is done on the back of a "Butcher" album (the "Yesterday and Today" album of June 1966), which shows on the front the smiling Beatles, meat and dolls with coherent body parts but separated at the joints. The edges of the album were split along two sides, according to information about it, so it may be that it was enfolded backwards and the front cover touched the drawing for some time, for there is a residue of the front image on the back. If so, the drawing was protected for some time by the enfolding before collectors owned it -- and it was given by John privately to the first owner. So John might have valued this drawing or hid it.

The drawing, however, has specific directional injuries, medically diagrammatic in a basic way, with specific shoes (short boots) linking the figure to PID in various ways, and has no joke feeling about it. Instead, contrary to the avant-garde smiling cover, this drawing not only is grisly but comforting and sympathetic to the dead young man it depicts.


The following item might be considered, if one is not careful or is feeling very sure of something, to be a discredit to the whole idea. After all, it could be noted in a "casebook", so to speak, but why put it here now?

Just to show that some anomalies must be tallied into maybes, which might mean absolutely nothing, yet because they are unusual, and might turn up to have been part of a real arrangement, they cannot be forgotten entirely. Paul was not known to have interest in Scotland before late 1966; but maybe he did. Let us look anyway, and just note it. It may never come up again, but maybe one day it might.

He would likely have to be from Britain, but could even be a Scot, or part Scot, if he had a mostly mild accent. He could have picked up some of the accent and felt it was his origin, but actually mostly spoken with more of a generalized BBC English style, not a perfect one.

Some English speakers in Britain fit this sort of description. Even Lennon had that quality: he picked up some Liverpool sound, but it was mild unless he "put it on" in a major way. He was taught not to sound too much like the locals. But he certainly did not have more than a generalized BBC English sound.

Only under deliberate leaks (if PID is literally true) or when saying or singing very emotional, family-oriented content, if Sir Paul were not careful, or if he decided to take the license in certain moments, would he have to give in to a Scottish-sounding accent, if he was part Scottish or mildly Scottish of accent. Such a line might be something such as this real example -- whatever made Sir Paul do this: on the Sergeant Peppers album, putatively the first album after the replacement, Sir Paul pronounced the second part of
"Grandchildren on your knee"
-- a line from the song, "When I'm Sixty-Four" --with a Scottish accent, as "Grandchildren ..." :
"ahhn yhurrhh nee".
Maybe this was a slip or license he took. Maybe not. And Sir Paul prefers Scotland to live in. But both of these things could be there and true for some other reason.
Image from here.

Do we have to listen to the maybes?Yes, to make a maybe case. Why do that? In case the maybes are not maybe nots, of course. Then we would (or could) look for definites to settle the issue either way.
Was it done? That is another level to the question, of course.Looking at the same thing or person in any two images is also tricky!How do we know the thing or person is the same?
Our brain compares not only the images, but what we also know.And what do we know?Shapes, lighting, age ... and our assumptions, emotionally.Yes, that is right: our emotions contribute.
Even if a person is the same, if you work ... yes, unfortunately actually work at being "crazy" to your assumptions for a moment ... work:
to see difference, just to highlight what is different in different images, you can at least notice differences in a person over time. Why? You will be able to isolate, to see and think through what is caused by age or snapshot angle and is quite normal. But you may also notice some things which do not quite seem to fit those explanations, say. If so, they may be a trick of the light or a facial expression. But sometimes in life, this is not the case, and a double or similar person has (not always deliberately) fooled us.
So ... Even the same people can suddenly look different. Different people can look the same.
No? Yes. What happens is not that they actually literally look the same, but that assumptions we make subconsciously about shapes and lighting changes, muscle expressions and typical mannerisms all add up and even consciously we make excuses.

Our brains compile and compare.They do not just "see" and "hear" and "feel".
Formally, there are ways to tell, if all else in our perception has fooled us. These are formal forensics of certain body or sound aspects to a person.
Image from here.

But it is true that ...Usually, our perceptions, though, kick in correctly at some point, with an optical illusion or body language illusion, or sound illusion (where someone mimics a general patter or slowness or gruffness of speech or singing style). Something will, usually, give it away.
What about when the problem is in us? Surely, the problem is not in you, of course, but it can happen to someone out there.
In those instances, the trick gave itself away, and "trick" may not mean deliberate fooling, but we miss it.
That is where openmindedness is important, using "clues" or suggestions as "leads", temporarily, such as really working to see whether there even could be fooling -- some aspect where a person tells us there is a trick, or some ripple in voice or visual expression oddness, and we decide not to explain it away. We hold it in abeyance as a maybe, and think it through.
From that, we might ask for further "proof", literal, real proof, not a maybe proof -- to know either way.

 Does everyone notice a difference? Which differences are natural? Which are natural but posing -- a different egg is not allowed in this box at the grocer's, though it is naturally different. Is Paul now in that situation?What would fans and historians and people who met them and did not suspect, feel and think? Would it be rage? Is that the fear of Sir Paul now?If PID is literal, then it may be.Image from here. (This author is not using this image for human skin colour, black-white relations issues, though that could be applied to the image easily.)

And if there is a body of suggestion from a close friend of the person -- the presumed same "person," of course -- a body of suggestion from a close friend, which talks of grieving, death, burial, head injury, a car crash, date of death, and so on, and does them together, not in isolated contexts, would it not be worth the effort to simply ask a weird question, as to whether this is a perceptual error on our part that all changes we may locate in the person are really from one person?
Normally, not, of course. Nor does opening one's humility to this possibility mean that it was done. Nor does it mean one cannot turn back, to decide again that there was no trickery.
But when there are powerful people -- and the Beatles were powerful, in the sense that they were the focal point of many others' power, interest, money, obsession, and even the emotional obsession of persons who were not fans, but wanted to be hangers on to the fame -- when there are powerful people, there are sometimes decisions made around them or by them which are very odd, for most people, to contemplate. People get killed around them (or they do) more often; more drugs and corrupt practices may find their way to their parties, sometimes; major money fraud is more common, sometimes targeting them and sometimes to their benefit; lies and excuses and cruelties can multiply around them, and they can get defensive about some expedient action they take, themselves.
Image from here.

It is worth knowing this, since we do have a body of maybes, the so-called "Beatles Paul is Dead clues".
The clues are not proof, except in the colloquial sense of looking at a possible pattern, direction, and inquiring if there is an argument they would suggest, if one were open to it.
Are there any "real" clues, as in, really there? Yes. We will go over this even more than we have.
Image from here.

But are the clues "real", as in, do they mean Paul really died?

Not necessarily do they mean that he died.No.(Whew!)
"Whew!" Image from here.

But if we do not decide ahead of time that our perceptions cannot lie about something like this, we can say that he might have and up to this point, we would be right about the statement as a maybe, a "could". We would have to ask more about it ...
to know either way.

Most people think working at seeing a problem is "just seeing what you want to". But actually, it is more like trying out what would happen if you really did try to see a difference. You are not trying to see the person as a double, but you are trying to see what happens if the optical illusion of time, age or even a double, would show you.
If there is a double, a person who is not actually the same, you will find that some differences likely cannot or cannot be due to ordinary camera shifts, lighting, and so on. If you do formal measurements, of certain things, this will also be borne out.
But until you isolate willingly what is different, you will not always see it transform impossibly.It is like a formal, mathematical optics perspective problem:perspectival tricks can fool an impression.
Image from here. Note that only from one angle will this work. Also note that there is an indication, a clue, that it is a trick: there is an impossible bar near the bottom of the open cube-like figure. Is John Lennon trying to say something similar, in his "clues"? Or not?

In fact, we are raising the issue of optics problems not merely to show that some things trick us, but to say that we can find out in a certain way when there is a trick, almost always.
If you are unsure if there is a perspectival trick, look for the strange-looking shifts. Some of them are quite natural. Some strange-looking shifts happen in nature. But look for the strange-looking ones.Once isolated, check all of them: if there is a trick, some cannot happen in nature.
If you find any which seem to be impossible or truly are, you have a trick on your hands, or a likely one.
It would be a very strange ceiling which had tiles which were perfectly longer further away, shorter closer up, to leave the same length distance visually as they physically recede from you. This is physically possible, but is a mistake in any normal drawing. Image from here. The bench, or bed, however, looks wrong and yet it is correct. (There is a 1-point perspective system used here; for that, the bench is correct.) Why does the ceiling, though, almost look right? Because in certain conditions of extreme foreshortening (perspective shifts), we do represent certain effects almost like this, but actually even they have some difference between the distances of the segments. So to a trained eye, not only would they notice this problem but be able to say that it is not due to the other possible explanation. As well, they would understand why many people do not see the problem at all or very often.
What kind of ceiling would give this even distance, between the parallel lines?

If this were on the floor, the tiles would be like this. (The example actually posits tiles the same shape as the ceiling, by using the diagonal of the ceiling.) If it remains on the ceiling, and one is looking up, the yellow would be at the top, orange next, brown further away.
The coloured "tiles" approximate what would give an even effect such as the perspective drawing gives, above. Is it physically possible? Yes. Is it a mistake by the artist, however, almost certainly? Yes, and it is, in fact, a typical one, actually.
Does it exactly look wrong? Not quite. Would you notice? Maybe not. Is it a subtle point? In some ways, yes. Would it require some words to explain the visual mathematics in speech? Yes, it would.
What would regular tiles do? Long or short, they would do something like this (this is for square tiles, however):

Images derived from this drawing lesson (screenshots: converted from GIF to JPG).

To continue:If we do look for possible ("maybe") problems ... and discover some likely or knowably true ones, something else often happens.Some things which looked just fine, too, will demonstrate that they do not jibe with the others. So they are only okay, as a front -- they are not okay in the whole. Then you know the image has false perspective or some other form of mistake or trick. For instance, try to make a dove-tailed joint here? You can, but it will not be a right angle, in fact, in any corner. Why does it look roughly right and only the people seem at first to be a problem?

False perspective room. All items in the room are perspectivally adjusted for your viewpoint, except, of course, reality: the people medically do not change like Alice in Wonderland. Image from here, cited as being from here, but unspecified as to the page.


Do you know how to tell that this room in the image above, with the false perspective, is a problem?
Is it just the women? No. The angles of the walls only partly work for a single perspective. Yes, there is a narrowing on the faraway wall and the camera is supposedly at an angle to it, so that is "okay", but if we correct it, so that it is not tipped and angled, we find that then the two side walls veer too steeply at odds with each other.
It is a subtle, and mutually reinforcing problem: one can see, if one works it out, that for any one thing to work right, the others are off a bit.
Each thing sort of looks right (sort of, for the errors there are subtle) but the features of the room together do not quite work. Then we can come back and notice that in fact all room angles are a little off. They are physically possible (one can build a room which in fact angles out and away in strange ways), but then it would not have the humans looking the way they do. So something else is going on: there is more distance between the humans than even the wonky walls imply.
The room is physically possible but not as what it presents itself to be.Certain aspects within the room are also (almost) possible as they present themselves to be -- but not together.
A double is like that. A physically and (possibly) talent- or interest-similar person in some regard, but not exact, maybe not even of the same general talent, or interest, but enough that they rise to the occasion, and people excuse anything different as a change in interest, in sweetness, in vivacity, in age ... you name it.
This does not mean Paul was replaced.
But it does mean in this limited sense, we have shown it could be done, and many would be fooled, if other things do not stand in the way of its being done.
It is hoped that these thoughts will merely start the reluctant type of reader thinking about how we bother with an idea or do not, and that often the decision is far more willful than those who "go looking avidly" for whether there is some problem or trick. At least, both can be wrong at different times, shall we say.
But for now, let us continue with the maybes ...
Image from here.

"*Disclaimer:" -- "Timmy, dear, it doesn't need a disclaimer." Image found here.

One cannot put stock in anything but physiological arguments, for direct proof (literal proof) of replacement or non-replacement of McCartney.
Unfortunately, this means that even the 90 or 99 percent of people who know of the issue, and are sure it is ludicrous, are also in the position, in argument, of having no formal proof by conviction alone from their senses. Even if they are right, they have no formal proof for other people, as a jury, other than physiological arguments, physiological clues -- from the putative dead body itself, from relatives' DNA compared to the present claimant (Sir Paul), or from photos, properly understood, of certain aspects of the live body or live putative bodies, and also of inaudible voice harmonics, if analog distortions to the recordings -- which are known to have been added -- can be accounted for.
 Best evidence. Image by author.But the so-called "clues", the symbols in text, visual and audial imagery, and other historical events which might leave space for such an event or close the door to it (like a non-existent or existent alibi), ought we to look at these things? They are not proof of replacement in the strict sense at all.

Right. They "prove" the pre-case of "maybe", the "justification" to look for forensic proof. This is important, too, especially when there is resistance to looking at all -- as long as one does not resist looking further because the clues are only for an idea, not a proof yet.

Text by author.Retyped for foreign-language speakers and their machine translation tools.
Sherlock Holmes knew an event had taken place. PID advocates postulate that an event took place.
Holmes uses "maybe" clues to why/how/who - and some turn out not to be clues, in fact. Each "maybe" clue makes us ask for more (actually, we can choose to ask for more or not, but Holmes does). Each time we ask, we refine each section of the inquiry as to why/how/who. Watson tends to resist and gets shocked.
PID advocates work through a pro-PID case 1 (pre-case). This is like a section within a regular case, but it is before one would normally start. (Some regular cases in fact start with only a few maybes, however, and are like PID in this regard.) They postulate that an event took place, and use "maybe" clues to that it occurred. They are under pressure to point out that the clues may not be clues in fact. Each "maybe" clue makes us ask. They choose to move from this section of a case (the pre-case) to a pro-PID case 2 (the limited question and formal replacement proof with bodily considerations). In pro-PID case 2, they look to find or not, any physical clues to that it occurred. They are under pressure from having scant physical evidence types to consider, of the right kinds for a formal proof.
Pro-PID Case 1 is arguing from themes as maybes. This makes us ask for Pro-PID Case 2 (or rather, we can choose to ask for it). Pro-PID Case 2 is arguing from absolutes, potentially, but with scant existence of the right kinds of material, no matter what end result (pro- or anti-PID) such material might show if one has it.


Text by author.Retyped for foreign-language speakers and their machine translation tools.
Left: Typical crime (Murder used as example)Definite Murder (Beheading, Bludgeoning, Knifing with no self-infliction angles or equipment).
Right: Unsure Murder - not feeling unsure yet.Why bother to ask? Or do not ask at allIf we bother, we may have indefinite clues. (We may be unsure whether clues are real clues). And we may have slight clues or only a strange reason to ask, or simply feel it is a strange reason to ask, even if we know there is some possibility of its being true. We may not even know yet if there is some possibility it is true.Do we continue?
---------This is two levels of "if" or "maybe". There are the clues as maybes, and the whole case together with them, as maybe. But if the two levels are built, eventually one wants -- or should try, just maybe -- to find if there is a literal true case, a forensic resolution of an issue which many do not even think is an issue.

We will go through the main clues sets for the broader pre-case; we will also deal with objections to the whole idea and to the clues individually; we will cover the clues (physical) in forensics, such as we have available, to show both sides of the proof issue.

Obligation to look further? Not exactly.
One is not obliged, strictly speaking, by a set of maybes to look further. In such a situation, except morally, or for pure thoroughness, one is not obliged. This is true in the instance of possible crimes, and in cases (instances) such as PID, where one might wish just to complete the argument, in the seemingly remote chance that the argument from the maybes matches reality, and one's other assumptions do not.
Let us repeat that:A person can always back out and say, "These are only a set of maybes." But it is unwise and undiligent, if there is a set of maybes.
And yes, a set of maybes means the set is also "maybe not"!But if there is a set and it is interconnected well, then the maybes side is why a warrant (in police work) gets issued.
In a logic argument, such as PID, where maybe there is no major crime (impersonation is not really a crime if everyone agreed to do it, right?, though it involves a lie, a moral crime, and some paperwork coverups) ... we do not issue a literal warrant, but a metaphorical one.Of course, if we discover actual crimes, other than paperwork lies here, that is a different thing.
The so-called clues also, if they were in fact done as revelation, are telling a story of what went on and express feelings. In fact, they tell more than forensics do, even "if"/"when" forensics prove a replacement. They are interesting, therefore, no matter whether one finds forensics bearing out replacement instead of non-replacement.
And they are how we came to know of the issue -- other than for those who saw or noticed differences, right off the bat, or were told. So we owe it to ourselves to understand the process people have gone through in discovering a possible replacement, even if it merely shows they over-trust symbols.



Injuries in the Lennon drawing, demonstrated:

What if?



Well, they would talk, but not directly. There would be always a double meaning or a good opportunity, until all agreed to formally spill the beans. It is always unlikely to have someone directly seek, alone, to end a lie to the public (on his or her own). -- Often, too, they will promote the idea within the knowing group, seeking approval and seconding. This means they often will be stopped, by being convinced to hold back a while longer, or by threats.
 (1)HEATHER MILLSImage from hereFirst, a strange self-defense statement from a latecomer Beatles insider, Sir Paul McCartney's 2nd wife (now ex-wife). - Was the following set of statements about money corruption or getting money from Sir Paul? She is often maligned as a lunatic or idiot (as was John Lennon's 1st wife, Cynthia Lennon for years, as well; both women display strong emotional unease at times in different ways), but this set of statements sounds very serious and detailed: "I DISCOVERED SOMEONE [AND LATER CLEARLY INDICATES THAT IT IS SIR PAUL] .... HAD BETRAYED ME IMMENSELY, I MEAN, BEYOND BELIEF -- AND I DON'T MEAN INFIDELITY, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT; . ... I HAVE A BOX OF EVIDENCE, GOING TO A CERTAIN PERSON; ... IF YOU [WHO? SIR PAUL? OTHERS LISTENING?] POP ME OFF [KILL ME], THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT. ... PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS, 'CAUSE THEY COULD NEVER, EVER HANDLE IT; THEY WOULD BE TOO DEVASTATED. -- HE [SIR PAUL] KNOWS. BUT I'VE GOT TO PROTECT MYSELF. -- YOU KNOW WHY I LEFT YOU [SIR PAUL]; PROTECT ME AND I WILL SAY NOTHING. -- I KNOW EVERYTHING AND I KNOW THE TRUTH. -- I AM PROTECTING PAUL AND I HAVE PROTECTED HIM FOR A LONG TIME. ... THERE IS SO MUCH FEAR FROM A CERTAIN PARTY OF THE TRUTH COMING OUT THAT [... I HAVE BEEN TOLD] BY POLICE [I ...] RECEIVED SERIOUS DEATH THREATS. -- I MARRIED A LEGEND AND THERE'S A MACHINE BEHIND. I CAN'T REALLY GO INTO IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES."
-- HEATHER MILLS, 2007 -- EX-WIFE OF SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY AFTER LATE 1966(Actual interview segments for most of these statements: here or here, and at 54:47 forward here, and 1:29:23 forward here -- for "... pop off", but note, the editorializing claims about Mills, just before this point in the last source, i.e., that she was an adult in 1966, are inaccurate. Print sources: many listed here with links, or you can search with search engines for them and more.)
This is a pretty strong set of statements. Some were made at different times, mostly together. Is it mere sensationalism, so as to get money in the divorce, or was that a side effect? Who would have her killed? There is such adamant detail in the overall statement (and its fuller version in the original, which comes from two interview sources) that likely fear is driving her to say it. If so, it still could mean "evidence" of many things. But it sounds like important evidence. Without any more information, it would be impossible to guess accurately. Money corruption? Abuses of his family members? Another dark side?
So, for logical accuracy, even if it feels illogical to ask: could it be that Heather Mills discovered that Sir Paul is not James Paul, a putative switch in public since late 1966? The idea of PID has been known to the public since at least 1969 in the USA, but probably it started before, in London, as a rumour, according to one of the first two US students to get into the public record of the subject.
To many people, if Paul died and was replaced with a secret new bandmate, it would, as Heather Mills says, be a huge betrayal to their worldview in some way -- including to Heather Mills herself.
(Another option, though, is, for example: if it were true, it would be more an interesting thing. It would leave a sad feeling for those in the lie, especially John Lennon. And, instead of having a worldview merely betrayed, if PID were true, it might goad a person to wonder about other deceptions in life which are far more known already, in fact, when one bothers to look.)

Image found here

George spoke about it on film once. The statement came after the PID case was known from the USA brouhaha, so we may interpret George's statement as merely referring to the brouhaha, or as a carefully timed reality check on camera. We cannot know which he was doing, of course, without knowing whether Paul really did die.
The George statement to which we are referring here, is not from the most well known clip of him supposedly talking of PID. That audio clip, far more well known, is from the disinformation or joke film "The Last Testament of George Harrison", which completely misrepresents the 2nd part of a real interview, which is here. Other people have posted just the George portion of that film, here: an "F" is added to the word "Paul" to make it "Faul" -- meaning "fake/false Paul", and every few sentences are spliced together, making it seem as if George is speaking not only about Paul's having a secret history, but also calling him "Faul" in public. (The disinfo film has accurate information mixed with absolutely wrong and/or partly diminished contextual information. We will discuss this in the relevant section on the major films out now about PID. That section is Preface Part E, below.)
The place where George may have spoken safely and half under his breath about it, was perhaps when he said, "Fab Three" in the "Imagine" film, filmed in 1970 but released in 1971. A filmmaker claiming that Sir Paul is a phoney, and thus calling himself Iamaphoney, shows the Imagine clip in his film "The Winged Beatle", at 45:00 minutes into TWB. After George jokingly or literally corrects John (who had said "Fab Four"), John reacts a bit in surprise, right after, though dismissively -- either because he hates the reality of it and wants to move on and is concerned about the camera, or because PID is a joke or hoax. Which is it?
If PID is literally true, then, since the date of the Imagine film is after 1969, John can calm down and accept that "Fab Three" has been said on camera after reacting. (IAAP -- Iamaphoney -- does edit the next moment of the film however, for effect. It is literally technically misleading, which his information itself is not. What is the effective but inaccurate edit? A wink from John, which does not directly follow the statement by George and the slight reaction by John, in the actual movie, Imagine. John was not winking about PID. But George does mention it on camera.)
George DID leave PID clues, however, for whatever reason: visual and in songs. I will collect some of those in the upcoming days, when I have time. -- It is Aug. 3, 2013 today, as I write these particular words.
 (3)RINGO STARRImage found here. (Note also: he is not giving the two-fingered peace sign as usual; has he decided here so very unusually to indicate PID - or just playing on the peace sign in a strange funny way?)

When Sir Paul said he is the last remaining Beatle (because he tours so much), Ringo solemnly stated that he himself is the last remaining Beatle (of the original Fab 4, if PID is correct), after pausing for thought. The interviewer assumed the pause, very serious as reported, was nevertheless merely a deadpan joke, for which Ringo is famous, this one purportedly lobbed back at Paul for claiming the title. Perhaps it was, though the pause for thought sounds more serious the way the interviewer stumbles over explaining it right after reporting it. What did Ringo mean? Anything?
Is he just joshing? Or is this very much an instance of his taking an opportunity when given to him. In the original article, he does definitely josh a bit about Sir Paul's statement, but then he gets very serious and thoughtful and says this.






Let us have a look at the cases for and against Paul's replacement after at least late 1966 (and if so, likely September 11, 1966, based on a UK not US reading of a Sgt Pepper album numbered date "clue" combined with the 1-year anniversary of that date, when filming started for "Magical Mystery Tour", which has many possible PID "clues" in it) ...

Magical Mystery Tour album cover. Image from here.

as we will see. So where is that date "clue"?

Mirror held to drumskin on Sgt Pepper album cover, a famous PID "clue". Read as Roman numerals combined with capital letters, it says: "IONE IX HE DIE", or II IX He Die -- which is 11 9 He Die. In the USA, this would be November 9, but in the UK it would be September 11, and it was during September through November in 1966, not after November, that putative plastic surgery could have been started, out of the way in Kenya, during a trip Sir Paul/Paul took. The drumskin is credited to a seemingly pseudonymous "Joe Ephgrave"; the words "epitaph" and "grave" are often cited as being used for the last name, as if this were a headstone.

It is surely odd that this September 11 date figures so prominently in the putative death of one of the most famous Western or Eastern musicians of the 20th century, and the most famous "rock and roll hoax", Paul is Dead, since the date September 11 will figure importantly into modern conspiracy explanation again. Or is it? Bizarre!

Image from here.

 Surely, there is no connection.

If there were a connection, between Paul is Dead and 9/11 destruction, both events would have to be both unofficial plots and lies by criminal groups -- not the same ones, necessarily -- and yes, Paul would have to have not only died but be murdered as if by accident, with the other Beatles not necessarily knowing it was murder. But ... probably not, right?

Image from here.

All this makes the whole PID thing seem much more like a hoax story.

A hoax story for PID is just what most people think and prefer it to be -- or ... does the September 11 date make it more likely to be true?

What? How? If so ... what would make it connect ... maybe?

Frontal bone can cut the skin of the temple region while moving up away from the lower head at the nose, in a side impact. Parietal bone collapses into the centre area and can shift upward, as brain matter vacates (explodes). John's drawing shows just such accuracy in a way that someone unfamiliar with anatomy would conceptualize such a gash.


As to the date, if it was deliberate, and thus relates to a putatively deliberate 9/11 date in 2001, how does this work? And that requires that for some reason, if Paul died, Paul was not only dead after at least late 1966 but murdered!

Does this make the whole idea more ridiculous? It depends "on your politics", i.e., what you consider before assuming whether something should be at least considered further.

We do not have to resolve these thoughts, anyway -- just show that and why they have been raised by persons who are convinced Paul died and was replaced.

So how could the dates relate, maybe?

Numbers (for example, squares and primes, particularly, such as 3, 5 7, 9, 11, 13) appeal to gangland and dark power-players, as a kind of "magic and mystery" connection to making things happen, controlling others with fetishism about numbers, and also to help members easily remember codes of behaviour and lifestyle -- or to be both: magic talismans and mnemonic devices.
  Sometimes they are also used at crime scenes by the criminals as a kind of signature of "whodunit", and sometimes dates of crimes are set by even low-end gangs on numeric dates significant to them, as police departments know.

Low-end gang graffiti on wall, sporting number symbolism. Image from here.

From "How to Identify Gang Graffiti": "Bloods: Like the crips, the bloods also use a star in their graffiti, but their star has five points again representing the five main points of the blood lifestyle, which i [sic] won't go into here."

Crips, a rival gang to the Bloods shown in last image, also use numbers (and the Masonic letters "G" and "C"). From the same Website: "Crips: The easiest way to recognize crip (besides just seeing the word crip or somthing) graffiti is the apperance of the six pointed star, much like the star of david. This star represents the six points of the crip lifestyle, but i wont go into detail on that here. Another way is if the b's in the tag are all crossed out, as a way to disrespect the bloods. 187 is also common for crips, The significance of the number lies in the California penal code. In the penal code, 187 is the code for first degree murder." [sic]

The kind of death and fraternity insider obsession of gangs also affects upper moneyed classes. This is the logo of the shadowy boys' club at Yale, known as "Skull and Bones", showing the "mystery" number "322", which is displayed in plain sight but never explained, for almost "magical brotherhood" reasons. Image found here.

These are gang style or literal gang examples of number fetishism. These groups above are not necessarily involved in Paul's death, if it occurred and was a murder as well. It is merely to make the point that numerology interests, of simple and complex kinds, do tend to flourish in criminal insider circles.

We do not want to confuse the reader with those things. Only at one point, where necessary, will the question of how could a supposedly roughly similar but of course not exact double be found so quickly be addressed with some pointed attention, and incompletely, but enough to show it could be done in some circles especially with preplanning, as some have been led to suggest -- maybe utterly horrible as a thought, but of course it is possible --

"Double 'O' No". That is, "00 No", an image which plays on 007, the number of the semi-fictional "James Bond" character, by Ian Fleming, a known British spy. The numbers 007 for Bond are often pronounced aloud as "double 'o' seven". Image from here.

or even maybe without preplanning, sometimes.

"Your comfort zone" (left) versus "Where the magic happens" (right). Image from here.

It is a fair question to ask how someone could be found quickly, and of course, if no-one was found at all, and Sir Paul is Paul McCartney from childhood, then we need not worry about anything at all, emotionally. But if one were to think through replacement options, we would have to cover the rapidity with which he was putatively found. We will mention some of some of the arguments around that, but not in detail. (The implications do take us far afield from the simpler question of whether we were fooled.)

If there were a wish to confuse, debilitate, effectively infiltrate or "use" the Beatles, in a context where other bands were even possibly partly created to be a false example, a misleading example for youth, then there could be motive for murdering Paul. However, there also could be help given by such agencies in the case of an accident. They use doubles and identity shifting methods more regularly than other groups, and could have offered their help or been asked in to help -- if, only if, Paul was dead. The Beatles were, moreover, big money-makers and image trendsetters for England in 1966, despite the problems they were having with the radical US south, in that period.

"ASA (Army Security Agency) Anthem", from here. This is an Amercian spy agency, but there are many, including in the UK, of course. The author of the article just likes the song, so includes this here.

Famous and rich people -- including artists and performers of all kinds -- can be tracked, tailed, wooed, and, as the expression goes, God forbid (but God does not forbid it), even be affiliated with various governmental and paragovernmental secret agencies.

Not that Sir Paul, if he was not only a replacement for McCartney, but found by any intelligence circle, has to have done work with any of them, deeming it patriotic in some way, but it is possible. If he were found quickly, to some people it has suggested that there might have been -- a horrible thought -- a plan to put him in for some reason, known or unknown to him. It is not impossible, of course, and has been done before. In fact, in the 1960s, as was mentioned above, there seem to be an increasing number of these sorts of connections which can be traced in the music industry. It is not certain in some cases, but there are some very clear cases indications of it.

If Sir Paul were not Paul, he could have been found by, or promoted to such a position, and been a musician. The assistance to him could mean he should return favours, or he may have known he would do certain kinds of things for international promotion of hedonism. Hedonism is a "lifestyle choice", but it is also a good deflection from mainstream war and economic protest groups. If "consciousness raising" drugs such as LSD were part of an experiment by agencies, as well as a deflection tactic from mass unrest being "mainstream", then such things would be part of what some in music and art would get involved with, knowingly or unknowingly linking them to covert (and, most people now feel, wrong) "intelligence" work.

So, if Sir Paul got at all, he got in quickly. If he was already positioned, knowingly or not, then someone had Paul murdered to get him in. Either way, he could have agreed to do work for agencies while being a Beatle.

Is this unthinkable? No. Is it likely? It depends on how much a person knows, and yes, it is likely if certain conditions were met. But it is not directly proven, even if Sir Paul is provably, at any point, not Paul himself.

Sir Paul got involved with LSD in 1967 publicly. As a matter of fact, some have pointed out that Paul McCartney, before late 1966 was not an LSD taker.

Sir Paul McCartney, 1967, giving an interview to the BBC about his LSD usage. He correctly states that the BBC is the one making something out of his usage, but from a "spook" position, if he was in one, then he and people at the BBC -- not all people there -- would be somewhat happy to present the idea, and he would be only superficially embarrassed about it all, only superficially defensive. Certainly, John Lennon's own heavy LSD use, mostly unacknowledged, did not hit the awareness of the youth of the UK or USA the way this one interview by Sir Paul did. Were spooks in the BBC using Sir Paul or was he one of them? Some wonder, not from this issue alone.

Anyway, since Sir Paul, if he was not the real Paul, was asked in, and since he would have been either asked in or at least helped over time by intelligence services, and may have even been asked to help any intelligence work, we should note the following from other cases:

There is evidence, for example, discussed in two parts here and here, based mostly on a book, that Harry Houdini used his main career as a partial cover for intelligence work for the British.

Front cover of "The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero", by William Kalush and Larry Sloman, available with "look inside" selected pages for view as an option, on bookseller. (This is merely an image, however. To buy or to "look inside", go here.)

There is also evidence that Uri Geller did the same (for at least three countries!). An article questioning this points to the more outrageous -- though maybe not all impossible -- claims he makes, ignoring the detail of his known work with spies and many other salient aspects of the BBC documentary, "The Secret Life of Uri Geller", which forms the testimonial about this. He is very proud, he says, of his double life.

 "The Secret Life of Uri Geller", BBC documentary which seems to expose Uri as helping in multiple ways, not all of them psychic, for three different countries' spy and general intelligence-service work: Israel, USA, Mexico. The details of his thoughts on the work and also on his enjoyment of being a double-life person as performer and in real life as a spy suggest that indeed he did some work, at least, for these countries or para-government elements within them.

But if there was a plot to "infiltrate" or "use" the Beatles as cover for other operations, was there any indication this was done? One strange connection raised in this contextual argument for the Paul death scenario, is that within one year of the replacement, if it was done, Sir Paul was working with Terry Melcher, Doris Day's son, on the board of the "Monterey Music Festival", 1967.

Many people were there and many were on the board, of course. But some have noted Sir Paul's presence while also considering what that might have meant in context of the Paul death idea, if it was a real death, and there was some infiltration.

The above two images are of the California Monterey Music Festival, 1967 brochure, listing the logo for the festival, the bands and individuals who appeared, and, in the bottom image, part of the board of governors. The images are screen captures within "The Winged Beatle" 2010 movie, about the Paul death rumour and possibility of a real death of Paul, here.

Even if Sir Paul was involved in the following as an infiltrator after a real death of Paul, yes, even if all that were true, he still would not be necessarily an all-bad person, an untalented musician, or anything like that. On the other hand, nor would it mean this would be, probably, his only act as an infiltrator.

At this festival, free LSD was given out, which is widely acknowledged to have to be a CIA-approved, or even also Mi5-approved action. Doris Day's second husband (Melcher) adopted her son from a previous marriage, abused him, and was also an agent. Could there be a connection with Sir Paul here? It is only one piece of evidence, in a context, and of course, as we noted so thoroughly, above, no evidence is sure without the arguments around it. But some have raised this sort of thing as an explanation of why and how Sir Paul was, supposedly, found so quickly, or even moved into position.

Even if Sir Paul is not Paul McCartney, and even if Terry Melcher or others were promoting LSD for the CIA at Monterey '67, Sir Paul could be innocent of the general connection to spook work (spy-work, so to speak), of course!

Yet, John Lennon does make specific mention of Doris Day in context of known intelligence services and media agencies with connections to propaganda, in his song, "Dig It" (from the "Let It Be" album, 1969):

Like a Rolling Stone
Like the FBI and the CIA
And the BBC, BB King
And Doris Day, Matt Busby

Of course, most people would not link BB King to intelligence work. Some have shown possible connections there, however. But Doris Day does have them, at least through her husband and maybe also her son, while possibly helping things for intelligence work during the war herself. We will leave this discussion at that.

We will be asking in this article mostly, more simply, only to know if we have a double in Sir Paul, not about all these other issues we just breezed over. But they were raised because some people may wish to think through some of the "why replace Paul" aspects, beyond the possibility that Paul might have been replaced simply to keep the Beatles' fame and artistic efforts going.

Fame and artistic continuance would almost certainly would be the main reasons the main Beatles circle might accept a double at all, at least initially, if it was done -- but we have just seen that others could have had other reasons as well, as we have just shown, to help a new man, a "double" in, or even to murder to get him in. We have gone to that issue, just to show what might or might not be good arguments around the case, if we determine first if there was any doubling within the case first.

Well, maybe we are only being ridiculous in mentioning this.

How would we be able to tell if there is anything to PID? Or murder?
Image from here


Kill Paul McCartney for what? Why on earth?! Is it not ridiculous enough to wonder if he died?
Or are there good reasons to kill Paul in 1966, which we might not think of, under ordinary conditions?

A metaphorical image for a sweet, yummy, ordinary day baking cookies with no reason to think Paul died, let alone was murdered! Or is there -- metaphorically speaking --  an outline of a dead body, even a murder victim?Image found here.

We do not have to resolve these thoughts, just show they have been raised by persons who are convinced Paul died and was replaced. We have to find out IF he died or might have been replaced, and that means asking about anything which might indicate it, or indicate that it is actually -- not prejudicially -- impossible.

If we are going to ask fully about the rumour of Paul's death, it is actually unnecessary to ask about the means to find someone, or how the death could have been accidental or not (that is could be murder), if it occurred.

We know some people have proved murder coverups in some political cases -- but we will not seek here to do more than discuss both ways if Sir Paul is Paul the original. Do remember, the author of this article knows very well that all of these initial statements are an if, right now, as you move through the arguments, but murder is thought by some people, not without some cause to wonder about that, to have occurred to Paul in addition to replacing him! There are some motives which can be described, for certain persons to have Paul murdered but look like an accident to the Beatles, at least at first. There are even some things in the general UK-USA music scene's history which in fact make the motives to murder and set up a new man as a Beatle, rather likely. That does not mean, of course, that this was done.


Whatever the case for dates and killings, which are not resolved even among pro-PID circles at this time, John's drawing and other PID "clues" or possible clues, are very interesting. We will be looking at them and at the forensics and other arguments on both sides.

Image found here. John Lennon's drawing is far more accurate.

"Beatle boots".------


Clues, drawings, false ears do not prove Paul was replaced, but they do raise the question.
Formal proof either way would only come from forensic considerations if we have them or will have them.

Image here, found archived here.

Not the wisest approach to possible trickery.


THE FALSE EARSon the later knighted SIR PAUL:
21 Screen shots from the Larry Kane interview------------

Detailed discussions follow between screen shots. How do we know they are false ears? How do we know it is not likely doctored imagery?(We will discuss the forensics of the real ears later, including optics on the head angle, lighting, the age of the person, etc., in Preface part H)
False ears do not prove replacement, but if replacement occurred, they would be part of the cover-up.


The 21 screen shots continue in a moment, but a few comments are in order:
 The video posts are not about PID and are up on Youtube (Dec 2010) and again in a different place on Youtube (Apr 2010).  The source is an Interview from May 1968, with Larry Kane, John Lennon and the -- for the moment hypothetically -- different or same Paul McCartney as before late 1966. The sources are still available and anyone can find the points in the video to see if the images below were doctored for this article you are reading.
No. The bulge is all along the lower ear, with a consistent shadow along the inner edge and a major gap right through the lower tragus region. The ear is thus lying on top of the cheek. So this is not strange shapes on the ears from damage to his ears themselves. (He even wears different types of false ears often through the late 60s and 70s, as other photo sources show, which we link to below but also copy into the article later. These unfortunately unsourced still images and 3 other screen shots, of which there are fewer than the ones presented newly in the blog, had been questioned, as if they were faked, but without any evidence to say so. They are now particularly confirmed by association with this new early video source.)
The proof of there being false ears in the video source for the screen shots below, for whatever reason the falsies were worn, is the presence of a defined and consistent shadowline in full light, along the lower ear at the head, between the lobe and through the lower tragus (the part of the ear along our head which reflects sound back into the ear canal, sticking out but attached to our heads). In natural ears, these areas have no linear shadow in youth, traguses connect with particularly smooth skin in real ears in youth and any shadows in age would be from obvious loose skin. The ear does not connect to the head here on the man in the film -- for whatever reason he wore them. The shadow conforms to the ear bulges in all light, being, therefore, not a piece of hair or regular cast shadow without a linear crevice between "ear" and head.

The falsies are good. Modern silicone methods would make this harder to detect, but in the 60s, they would have used the best they had then, which money (or loyalty?) could get, for whatever reason he wears them. Again, only forensics, if available in the right kinds, would show definitely whether PID or PIA (Paul is Alive) proponents are, in fact, correct, no matter what each side thinks of the other -- not clues, not false ears.

Grab your own screen shots and embed the videos (not just link) elsewhere, PLEASE. So that if they are taken down, I am not the only one with these items.


Comments between screen shots:

Someone has claimed the videos from 2010 cannot themselves be proved undoctored by PID people first, i.e., before this author noticed them.This kind of argument is technically correct but NOT useful in the gist; actually, perfectly proving real is not always possible directly; proving fake footage perfectly sometimes is. So we are left with the gist: the most plausible reason for the often perfect shadowline of false ears, so perfectly shifting for every head movement and lighting condition, is that it was there in the real footage.
The falsies are indicated not only by a LINE of shadow, but also, in side views, by BULGING AND CONSISTENT highlights on the ear at the connection to the head. They are thus overlaid onto the head, shown by overall lighting on the ear, not just a line of shadow. The lighting therefore shows a full false ear, not merely a line of shadow which might be overlaid (doctored). The naturalness of the lighting condition and the fact these were not discovered in any hype, indicate that these are reasonably interpretable as real source videos and he was actually wearing falsies.

Again, to simplify: in natural ears, there is no bulge continuing along the lower ear (the lobe), for light to catch all along the area, and no shadow beside it, along the connection. The images are consistent, for all angles. This is therefore not a merely doctored "line" of shadow.
The sources are also from video unrelated to PID researchers, from any indication. If they were themselves done to fool us, there are no obvious signs of it and it went undiscovered until now. Definitely, the screen shots below are undoctored after the videos were done, as you can confirm with the source videos.

 A few more comments may be in order between the screen shots:
Did the interviewer Larry Kane notice the false ears, in a short interview time? Maybe. Maybe not: could he have not noticed the false ears at all, with the big sideburns? Maybe. Was he told it about them and told they were a joke? Maybe.

Yet Larry Kane could miss an all-out switch of Paul? "NO WAY!"

Well, actually, it is a possibility. We have seen that Stalin's double fooled not only close aides but was argued about for years after. But for Kane, the false impression, if it was one, could be just wrong self explanation without major fooling: he was, after all, seeing someone a bit different, not radically different, even if PID is literally true, and it was after a few years, during only a high-powered 10-minute interview. Assuming things and explaining them later or not at all, can take strange forms, as is obvious in the last linked item (a video).
So, if, just if, PID was really done literally, Kane might have assumed mentally he was with Paul, and all changes in Paul were due to his being just a bit older -- as most in the public do today? Maybe.

And if Kane instead knew the whole thing, if a real switch, occurred -- for he knew Paul before late 1966 -- would he keep quiet for loyalty? Maybe.
All this is indeterminable for certain either way, about Kane, at this point. But one way or another, the false ears were on the later knighted Sir Paul. Let us look ...

Comment between screen shots again:IS HE ADDICTED TO PLASTIC SURGERY -- IN MAY 1968?Some people already suspect merely that he is addicted, at least in later life, to plastic surgery. This suspicion may be taking hold in some people because some aspects of his face look so different than James Paul, especially in how different people age -- if the putative switch occurred -- rather than that he has only had plastic surgery for a while.But maybe he did just become "addicted", in later life -- and maybe in earlier life, too. But then what kind of surgery would require covering a whole ear? Only major facelift surgery. This is rarely done even now in someone so young, and in the 1960s, would it be likely at all? Hardly. So maybe a better explanation is that the false ears in early 1968 are not due to plastic surgery at all, but just part of a joke? Maybe. Or maybe they are there as a joke within PID as a weird joke hoax? (Instead of that PID "clues" were really trying to say that he was actually a different man with some similarity to Paul.) Maybe.Or then again, if forensics prove it is not Paul, instead of prove it is, then ... maybe he is not Paul, but a different man otherwise asked to join the band -- but ever-so-unusually having to act somewhat like Paul and get some work done on himself, too! Weird. Yes, a strange idea on the face of it (no pun intended).But, of course, ...false ears would cover real differences in ears, and also maybe plastic surgery scars. Plastic surgery does not do miracles, but it can add filler and even out a chin, and so on. Could it be? Maybe, maybe not -- and from these falsies alone we cannot know. What of his music? Is it exactly Paul's? We will get to the arguments on both sides and the forensics of the real ears.But for now, why the false ears?

 Some more comments between screen shots:


Perhaps due to the respect shown the issue here, that is, the strict balance involved in this article, to find if there are any proper proofs either way of Paul's continuance or replacementYoko Ono herself followed me on Twitter -- the morning right after someone maligned this blog to her in April 2013 and blocked me. (Perhaps she is only endorsing this article because she is continuing PID as a hoax idea, or just being idiosyncratic. But maybe she is endorsing this blog because, say, Paul actually died or because the article itself is balanced.).
By the way, even if PID were found to be a hoax or joke, Yoko also follows the Twitter account of the biggest (outrightly solely pro-)PID name in the world, that of "Iamaphoney"/"Billy Martin" -- who made many films, including the interesting "The Winged Beatle". Interestingly, "Iamaphoney", named after the putative Paul double's phoney public, might even have gotten his money and information from insider Neil Aspinall, based on suggestive Aspinall company records, as we will show. (In Preface Part E, we will contrast his work with another film, a very inaccurate, fairly well known spoof film, possibly even a disinformation film, called "Last Testament of George Harrison".)

More comments between screen shots:
"I know this is ridiculous and always will know it."
Because the clues and these false ears raise the issue, not because they prove anything further, they are discussed in this article, no matter what a personal belief is. Forensic considerations must prove one side or another, if they are available, no matter what a personal conviction says -- due to the fact that brains can be deceived, as we have seen with Dadaev and here with Person Swap with Derren Brown.

No, it does not. Even in someone who starts off having a similar look in some angles, still plastic surgery does not work miracles with head shape and certain bone proportion, nor ear cartilage shapes in subtle ways -- the ear is radically changed if the main cartilage is changed. Instead, could this be a new bandmate with the interesting (perhaps unique) stipulation that he get filler and some plastic surgery on what bones can be changed, such as chin?
Would an article such as this have to hate or malign Sir Paul McCartney to discuss these things? No. Would the focus, if he is not Paul, have to be only on him? No.If Paul died and was replaced in fact, Sir Paul would not be the only person of interest in the case.But it would require studying his body to find out if he is not Paul.

Again, it is likely indeed that -- hypothetically speaking for the moment -- if Paul died in late 1966, many insiders and Paul's family would likely have thought that the Beatles -- a very special band and phenomenon -- would not be accepted as a Fab 3 or New 4. The terms sound weird even today. The solution of having a double bandmate, if so, to continue the wonderful music in a somewhat new way, but continue also some idea of Paul as name and image, would not be as weird as might be assumed, even if it was not done.

Before we continue, we should note: was he a talented musician found by intelligence services in a pinch? Maybe not, but it is possible hypothetically. If he is, however, a literal double, as well as his own musical talent, then others, at least, would in intelligence help the ruse continue. This would simply be required for such a switch in paperwork and fingerprints and a few other aspects of the putative switch.
However, it is worth noting in passing, that some persons who are in entertainment also get into or come out of intelligence services, with deep commitments in BOTH fields. They have been proud to be so. (Uri Geller is one, long suspected and now confirmed. Houdini was another. Mata Hari was suspected of it and killed for it; if she was also spying, it has now come under suspicion as to how far she was one.) Would Sir Paul have double allegiances to music and intelligence services, if he was found by them? Not necessarily, but it is possible as a consideration. What would that lead to? Pressure? Infiltration of certain ideas? Maybe. But even if not ... there might be pressure from the simple intel helpers to keep it all quiet after.
Either way ... why the falsies? =================

A few more comments between screen shots:
This Interview find of false ears also confirms -- by association -- several photos already identified on pro-PID sites, though the false ears in all these images do not prove Paul was replaced. The photos were maligned previously as having been faked by PIDers, because these other images were unsourced, in the researcher's haste. However, the source for these screen shots is two videos which are still up and public, and not related to any PID site, so they can be confirmed as not having been doctored by the author of this article.) The Dec 2010 source is the complete interview and a clearer copy, visually. The Apr 2010 source is edited by the person who posted it, who left off the first few minutes of the Interview and it is a slightly fuzzier version visually.

Grab your own screen shots and embed the videos (not just link) elsewhere, PLEASE.

Another comment between screen shots:

The reason this author found the false ear evidence (for whatever reason the falsies were worn) is that the suggestion of false ears in still photos made this author wonder if any film showed it, too, since film faking of this kind -- fully natural lighting and adjustments in images with no signs left of tampering -- is very hard or impossible in some instances to do, depending on the kind of change needing to be made. Some faking is possible but will always be detectable; other kinds are easier, but only some kinds. Having asked the question, it turned out that most film of the man, putatively Paul, in the early post late-1966 period, never shows him turn his head enough to see his ears close up. But this one interview does and ends up showing false ears as would be expected from the other still image evidence, if it was legitimate. It would seem, from all of this that indeed, then, he wore false ears in public -- but why?

Note, too: there are 2 screen shots below, which include the page titles of the two source videos.

Finally: though the colour in the film is desaturated, making all things darker, Paul or the Paul new bandmate, has such perfect thick-laid hair here, with shiny highlights to the point of odd, perhaps, that we may wonder if he is wearing a wig as well as the falsies. If he had plastic surgery -- innocent or not -- he may need such a thing. But why such major surgery (if so)?

 First, whether you believe or not that Paul died, and whether Paul did die or not, please grab COPIES OF THE VIDEOS yourselves. Post them around as YOUR OWN, not merely on Youtube. People's posts disappear for their own reasons and Youtube -- some of you may not believe -- comes under pressure to remove (censor) certain items.So ...Whether PID turns out to be done as a joke or not, evidence to be sifted about what was, and was not, said and done in the 60s about PID (or any other realm of inquiry) should be preserved. Please grab these two video sources, whether you are "on the side of" PID or PIA (Paul is Alive). THANK you. I DO NOT want to be the only one with the screen grabs or video sources. I am an honest researcher.

 And since I am limited to MS Paint program, here are shots of the dates of the uploads for each video. I could not copy the whole in one screen shot. The shorter Interview version actually has no uploader description more than shows in preview, so I did not expand it for the screen shot.




Routine plastic surgery scars required false ears? Or was the amount of surgery he was having due to changes to help with looking a bit more like Paul? Or was it that and he had different natural ears? Not knowable from these photos alone. But it could be part of a literal PID situation.[The flap falsies (directly above) and the tubular-attachment-to-head falsies (below): from here.]

These images compiled here. Note naturalness of photos, each different. This one has a huge antihelix -- forward, not backward like the true ear (and this one looks like a plastic surface); note here also the lobe's unnatural resting shape on head. Top image from a movie (flap is also seen in other images below in this article compiled at same place). Different falsies (false ears).One example of many problems.Routine plastic surgery scars required false ears on the right (note bulbous attachment to head)? Or was the amount of surgery he was having due to changes to help with looking a bit more like Paul? Not knowable from these photos alone. But it could be part of a literal PID situation.
If the left and right images were BOTH natural:

The attachment to the head is tubular at right.
So, the one on the right is a false ear.
We see other false ears (with clear cheek flaps this time), above. Did he use false ears to look good after.Was he maybe using them to look better and protect ROUTINE cosmetic surgery scars? MAYBE SO. But given the forensics discussed below, will we find that he was a different fellow and still is?

A HEIGHT COMPARISON: Paul McCartney full body with Mal Evans, roadie; and Sir Paul full body with Mal.For more info on this image, see point 2 section. Original source=here. There is some lens distortion in the photo at left affecting the comparison, whereas any distortion irrelevant for angle of  comp on right, because the two men are roughly hip to hip touching and in a parallel line with the camera. On the right, though, there are possibly heels on Sir Paul. Taking some lens distortion and some possible heels into account for the two photos: are the overall body heights noticeably different? Definitely not by a lot, at most only 2 to 2 1/2 inches, and possibly less than that, maybe only 1 1/2 to 2 inches -- with a bit more heft @right? Perhaps, perhaps not?
There is already some evidence that John and Paul's heights were slightly exaggerated in press releases and eventually on their passports. If Paul was not 5'11 but closer to 5'10 in youth, and Sir Paul were even 5'11 1/2 or so in youth, the heft difference would be noticeable. Paul was not "short" but he was rather fine boned and seems short, not middle height. Same with John, who seems also to have been closer to 5'10, in some people's assessment. Interestingly, the "Sergeant Pepper" outfits seem to support this. I can't find it right now -- sorry! -- but someone was commenting, not on literal PID or anything like that, saying they are 5'10 and tried on one of the jackets at a special event and it was slightly too short and small even on him.

WHAT ABOUT THE REAL EARS? The John Lennon PID (?) drawing follows this short précis about the real ears issues (which are fully covered in Preface Part H)

There are many aspects to the overall case for and against literalist PID, including the people (not that many, but several) -- how they might have felt if involved in such a thing. But the limited, proof-case is forensic only, on real, not false body parts, and not about "clues" at all, or people's lies and sneaky feelings. Some time ago, one of the few interested and rather well known but not polemical researchers, R. Gary Patterson, uncritically quoted a friend at the "body farm", who makes some generally unhelpful statements. For one thing, the friend claims that "ears" are not forensic proof of anything when one discusses by "feature", yet (of course) then contradicts that by saying one must look for "identifying aspects" of those features -- which would always be what was meant by looking at a feature, anyway!
What useless comments -- even if we might end up finding no suitable photos of Paul's real ears in the different periods to use to determine proof, anyway.
In this sense, ears are like fingerprints. Real ears, though, only, of course. This means if the ears differ radically in some specific easily detectable way -- in the cartilage overall or even one main feature change -- all our other impression certainty would have to be thrown out the window, so to speak. We may not have to do change our minds about Paul's being alive now, but we will cover the forensic issue below (ears: Preface Part H, the rest: objections in Part 2 of article, forensics generally available in Part 3 of article), just in case ... it turns out in the end that we will have to learn to see a general difference in the men, from discovering whether even one telltale feature differs -- such as a fingerprint or major ear feature.
What must be realized by the reader is that if even ONE important feature differs in a key way, the others which are debated but iffy suddenly fall into the side of actually being known: as close but not the same. This would mean our impressions, however dearly held, were wrong. (Some people would not have to change their minds, of course: they do see a difference in the two men.)

But the falsies ... ?! Strange.

We will show and discuss initial points about the drawing, then continue with the article.


More about the Drawing

Lennon drew this atypical piece sometime before he signed the other side and gave the album privately to young collector, in 1971.Date of drawing unknown.
Though possibly posted to the Internet before, on the current owner's Website, this drawing has never been discussed as a possibly major PID clue or been widely known in general. As such, it is a "new" thing, a possible PID item, for whatever reason those clues were done (and at least 4 definitely were, as we will show in the section called "Intro").Very large John Lennon drawing done on the second-last, pre-PID Beatles album, which was released 20 June 1966. Full scale drawing shown below as "Fig. 1" (use search option in browser). Even more detailed discussion is in "Part 1" (again, use search option if you wish), with a description is given of every major feature in the drawing.
However ...


Let us first establish that the drawing shows a human figure, a dog, a flower (or mushroom) in colour, a sun and a shovel, with some scribbled earth beneath the feet of the figure.
Having established that much, we may go on to ask if there is anything significant about the drawing which shows death from severe injuries, and not something else. Indeed there is. It is the dislocation of the upper portion of the head from the lower, in a dotted line and angle of the top portion, with a gaping space on the left side of the head (our right). The eyes match the fact of the dislocation across the head: they stare in opposite directions and the upper and lower lids (especially of the left) are separated in a marked manner.

There is an indication almost of a 3 Dimensional bowl cut into, in the way the bottom half of the head arcs back (right blue arrow). There is a very jagged remainder of the head which arcs up and around (left blue arrow), showing that this is bone cracked and the dark image is blood and brain matter. There are gore drops all over face and on bottom half, plus hanging in two lines or a complete bit of skin or other matter (red arrow). The eyes are not only staring in two directions but the lids are split and different sized: the left one (our right) is possibly normal sized or, alternately crushed, the right one (our left) being therefore a bit protruding out of its socket or alternately normal sized but staring down.
These facts establish a death and severe head injury theme. There are other themes present (the dog may be comforting the figure, the sun may symbolize setting in death and, or rising in rebirth, and so forth), but one thing is for sure: the figure is so injured he would be dead.

What about the top, dark shape over or on the head? Is it hair or a fool's cap, as some suggest?
The position of the dots on the face and around the shape at the forehead and hanging from lines over the gaping wound on the left of the head indicate that the dots have to be gore. They are not at the end of the shape (in tassels) and they would not be present in mere hair, nor on the face itself in any other situation of a serious injury.
As to the fool idea:There is no fool's cap on the man,  Fool's caps have tassels at the ends, not at the head -- and the putative bells on tassels are gore because they continue over the face and there is the left to right gash and jagged top gashes as well.Image from here, cached here
There are jagged lines at the top of the head, too, and the dark shape angles up and out. John used stains on the paper to work into his drawing, but his choice of what they are must be defined by the actual drawing content. The dark shape most naturally is blood and brain matter from an upper head wound, as befits the side-to-side wound theme. Carrying this forward, this means the figure has lost the top of his head or it has opened, as well as receiving a side-to-side wound and gore has spattered on the face, brow, and hangs from the side wound.
(Note that the destruction of the top of a head fits the lines in songs about death in the Beatles' repertoire: in "Come Together", with talk of disease and monkey finger creepiness, there is a line about being a "flat top". The song also mentions "joo-joo eyeballs", possibly wonky, dislocated, damaged, as in the drawing. In the song "Don't Pass Me By", which is about someone's friend, dead in a car crash, there is a line about losing one's hair in the crash, which poetically and in most crashes would naturally mean losing one's head or part of it.)
The top of the head cannot, in context, be representing hair (as some suggest) or a fool's cap. (There is, though, possibly a "fool" image connection to the overall drawing: in the dog, sun and flower, through the tarot card called the Fool, and there are other ways the figure may relate to the song "Fool on the Hill" by the Beatles, but not as a fool's cap on the head) This image, however, adds definite diagrammatic injuries and outright death to all these themes, if they were in fact worked into the drawing as well.
The man holds a shovel. It is in his right hand, and Paul was or is left handed, but the fact is that the left is often seen as the side linking us to our hearts (symbolically), and also if John was only partly thinking of everything as he drew this emotionally taxing scene -- of whomever it is -- he may well not have been concentrating on handedness. The figure is, no matter what, busy with both his hands evenly, even if the shovel work was done with the right; however, it is highly unlikely that an artist dealing with a grisly death of a friend -- if it was of left-handed Paul -- would concentrate on the shovel's handedness, when both sides of the body are in fact in use. Also, the use John made of the colourful stain under what became the dog image, necessarily puts the dog with flower on that side, not on the right.
There is a dog; one might say the dog is "active": it is either seeking attention or giving it. In the context of a little flower also present under it and the serious and dead state of the figure, it is likely giving attention. It is also on the left side, which might or might not have been symbolically in the mind of the artist, and is not important to interpretation, because the attitude and context of a sweet pose for the dog with a dead man, is more important; but if John was thinking about handedness, the left side of a figure does connect to the heart in most symbolic traditions.
There is a sun shape: rising or setting, or implying both, it relates to death -- already established in the wounds -- as setting in death, or rising for a rebirth in spirit, or both.
The ground is dissheveled. Actually, it is shovelled, by implication, since the figure holds a shovel. This could mean the figure has "farmed", as one has suggested, but if so, he is most significantly a dead farmer, then -- already established in the wounds. Looking at the ground scribble as a Rorchach test, as if no interpretation can stick to the drawing and analyzing it is useless, turns out not to be a helpful approach: the head has a two-way split. So the ground, being loose scribbles, with a shovel and a dead man means he must be digging his grave.
His shoes are dissheveled. This is another PID theme. The shoes are rather carefully drawn, like the head. So this may well be a feature of a real memory, of whomever the figure is.
The arms are done a bit more sloppily, in the style of the body. A loose line through the left arm might indicate a gash -- or it could just be that the arm originally looked too thin to the artist, and he redid it slightly.

WHAT HAVE OTHERS SAID ABOUT THIS DRAWING?Full size drawing is given below, as "Fig. 1" (if you search for it in your browser). The gore and split eyes are clearer in the full-size image. The artwork was previously unrecognized as a death image with gore, in commentaries (radio early 1972 and article showing this image 2013). More details will be given in Part 1 of the article. But already, if you go to the links, you will know that this has been called a "Fool on the Hill" figure in the radio comments and called a "Farmer" in the recent article, but both times there is no mention of the death theme!

Originally, the "Fool" theme was suggested, off the cuff, by the radio DJ. Calling the drawing "weird, very weird" as well, and not likely thinking of detailed imagery on the typical Tarot card of the "Fool", it is likely that he was thinking of the top bloody matter as a bunch of tassels from a fool's cap (ignoring that the dots are at the head, not at the ends, and not noting the side-to-side gash across the eyes). From this error, the sun could well seem to be merely from the "Fool on the Hill" song, which has the sun as a main symbol in it.
But a DOG, SUN AND FLOWER are on the Tarot of the Fool as well:

So, ironically, it may be that indeed, though the commenter would almost certainly not be thinking off the cuff of the Tarot in such a detailed way ...
Still, it may be that, yes, John might also have had the Fool card of the Tarot in front of him, while doing the drawing. As such, if so, he transformed the Tarot, into a poignant image of a violently dead young man, possibly a friend (Paul). John did not need to have the Tarot in front of him to do the salient aspects we are pointing out here: that he is intensely violently dead and with PID-theme injuries and shoes, shovel, grave. But he may have had the Tarot in mind.
And as to the "Fool on the Hill" song? Well, it might rather be that the Fool on the Hill was partly inspired by a death and the Tarot combined, not that the drawing is "just a character from" the song or the Tarot or both.

The omission of the fact of violent death in this drawing has to be an inner denial mechanism in the persons viewing the drawing, brought on likely by how atypical this sort of literal killing is, in a drawing by Lennon, plus how kind the visual treatment of the figure is. We will discuss in a moment how the sweet effect. in spite of the injuries, is artistically achieved.
PATHOS IN THE TREATMENTThe figure's and sumbols' overall "feel" -- that is, the resultant drawing's impression on our emotions -- is not one of gore at first. This is due to the simplicity not only of the line overall and the calm, dissociated body pose and comforting dog, but also the simplified directionality on the wounds themselves.
The wounds are simplified: the head remains overall intact, so as to make the head look more like a cracked egg cut across, fairly neat, and a cracked eggshell along the very top, in neat jagged lines. Simplified wounds -- diagrammatic enough but over-simplified in shape -- give a cartoon effect, slightly. The set of the mouth is almost sad and a dog in hand is sympathetic enough to draw us away from the disgusting reality those wounds would make: the head is not truly crushed and matted and disfigured, as it would be from a two-way head injury.
Thus, for all of the gore and diagrammatic imagery on the body, it is tasteful enough -- so to speak -- that the theme of death went unnoticed in the two known communications by viewers of the image (or the commenters mentally subsumed their impression of gory death and did not comment upon it).
In the mind, say in ancient Egyptian art, Mediaeval art, or in some aspects of all art, items are done TOGETHER: so time is a bit conflated sometimes, or a figure is "apparitional": it shows ("diagrammatically") that which is known as an idea (such as, in this case, wound direction, blood spurt, etc.) while also dead, while also standing, while also holding a shovel, etc.
For example:one would have to surmise that the top blood and brain matter is imagined or remembered as if bleeding out on the ground or symbolically spurting at the moment of death, even if John didn't see it during the spurt or while he bled out.
As was remarked above as well (so this mini section is a repeat, in case the reader missed it) ...
"Gumboots" were developed from 18th-century German military boots, and were used for hunting, riding and wet weather protection. They came into use under Wellington, who had the first design adaptation made, in England. More commonly known as "Wellington Boots", they went by many nicknames. (And the term "Wellington boot" or "wellie"  is now used more commonly in England for rubber or plastic rainwear in general.) They original style was nicer than general rainboots today, had heels, were formal but simpler than the German version, as well as comfortable, roughly knee-high and made of black leather.
"Beatle boots", a slightly shorter gumboot style, preferred by Paul McCartney and the other Beatles, in the early years, were similar. Could this be where the line "gumboots" comes from in John's song, "Come Together", which  contains at least one PID idea -- the walrus idea -- and many more possible ones, or at least contains a lot more of a general death theme? And could it be why a button-down version of slightly higher shoes or Beatle boot style are on John's drawn dead young man? The figure's shoes seem to have stronger, higher heels, called "Cuban heels", which are on Beatle boots.
Beatle boots have zippers or side stretch panel areas. Could the dots on the low, dissheveled boots, with high heels, in the drawing, be not buttons but, instead, stylized zipper teeth? The dots are on both sizes of the dissheveled shoes, so it may be.

The question of date of death, whether as hoax or in realty, cannot be resolved for certain, at this time -- even for those who take the position that he died. So even if we can find forensics showing that Paul really did die, or at least that he was replaced, the date of death remains open from the following considerations:Paul putatively died just over a month after the release of the album on which Lennon did this drawing. Up until fairly recently, when more research and discussion took off again about PID, and a wider segment of persons doing speculative work began to collaborate, there was always the assumption that Paul died sometime in late 1966, if he did die.

From most indications, however, the case for a date of death in PID circles, situates that death -- if he did in fact die -- in early September 1966 at the latest. Though some have said there are overt clues before late 1966, the strongest, and possibly only literal "clue" information started in 1966 and combines well with historical events of late 1966 forward, as they can be known at this time.
The month of death, if it was late 1966:For years, PID clue searchers, even for those writing up the situation as a "hoax", not a literal death, have mostly assumed an American date style for the one clue which presents a possible mention of the date. (Another clue mentions a much later date, already in 1967, during a disclaimer, and so its date can be discounted, though the need to disclaim cannot: it may be a cover story.)
Americans, were the commonest PID researchers for years, and thought the probable -- hoax or real -- death clue on the Sergeant Pepper album cover's drumskin image, forced a conclusion that the putative death occurred in November. But British numbered dates vs USA numbered dates are different. The "clue" of a number date of 11 9 (in the form of roman numerals and a message: IONE IX HE DIE) -- for the year 1966, it seems to most-- reads naturally as September 11 in the UK, but reads as November 9 in the USA. Combined with known movements of the various Beatles -- but putatively, of course, with the new "Paul" -- and their entourage, in those months of late 1966, when they all left England for a time, especially "Paul" or Paul, who went far away, to France and Africa -- possibly for initial plastic surgical work -- places the putative death no later than September (UK Style), not November (American style), if the clue is real, whether the year is correct or not.

Also, this author presents the conclusion that it would seem to stand to reason, with all things considered, including possible earlier doctored imagery, that that possibly doctored earlier imagery came from a later attempt to create confusion in the record.
Car crashes -- considered by some persons now to be a deceptive clue within literalist or hoax PID circles -- are, however, the commonest theme of death for Paul. If the PID themes in general are real, and he died not from the main theme, a car crash, but was murdered inside or near a car, or if there was some other death location and method, the evidence is far shakier to hold that position, though it is unknowable from the clues alone, and so remains an open question even if we find forensic information showing he died.
So, about the drawing date:If Paul died in September 1966, or the hoax says he did, then John's drawing poignantly shows a dead, or hoaxed-dead, man on the second-last album which came out before the putative real or hoax death date.
However, again, all of these things cannot be resolved for certain, at this time, even if we can find forensics showing that Paul really did die, or at least that he was replaced.

If John was in mourning and felt anger for Paul after a grisly death, he might well have chosen this album to draw on, for two reasons: the date of the album's release, being so close to the death date and the general theme of death depicted on its front cover. As we will see, the type of death, emotional tone and subject's age are very different in this drawing than in the death imagery on the front cover of the album. The album this is drawn on is the "Butcher" album ("Yesterday and Today"); this album cover already has the theme of death on its front.
Butcher version of "Yesterday and Today" album. An avant-garde, general death scene, with smiles for clever fun. Body parts of dolls are whole, popped away at the joints, not chopped into. The meat is stringy, not defined. There is no sense of mourning. Image of the album cover is from here.

Is the drawing about the album's own death theme, merely generalized?
The Beatles are merely posturing in an avant-garde attitude on the front cover. The image on the front shows complete baby doll heads, limbs dissociated at the joints and meat. There is no specific chopping imagery or dislocated eyes, or severe blobs of spatter out of a wound, as we have in the drawing. Nor is there any sadness. So the drawing and the front cover do not come close in tone or types of injury. If John was simply ruminating on the front cover theme, the resultant drawing is not a natural visual image transition for a person (artist) to make, to say the least. If, however, someone around him, or Paul died in the manner depicted in the drawing, the general theme on the front of death in general would easily lend itself to the artist resentfully and sadly choosing the album to put this drawing on: simply as a "general death theme" and if it was true that Paul died in late 1966, the date of the album as the last one before the death, would also be significant. But the drawing has an actually different specific theme, as if it were already in the mind of the artist when he chose to draw on the album showing a merely general death theme. It would seem unlikely from these arguments that the general death theme was merely further generalized into becoming the fairly specific imagery and wounds seen in the drawing.
Without other considerations, especially forensics about Sir Paul vs Paul pre-late 1966, maybe there was another death in John's mind when he drew the art? This we will discuss next.

If someone specific died in a horrific condition, the drawing is rather remarkable: it treats the horror of the look of the body with some accuracy, yet overall also represents sad resignation, even in the face, as we have remarked, thus lending poignancy to a grisly scene. Did anyone have to die for this drawing to be made? Who could it be, if so?

1.Is  the drawing about a specific already known death in John's life?
The image seems to be diagrammatic and sympathetic enough to have to be about someone's literal death, even if not Paul's, rather than a mere cartoon, though it is simplified. The two publicly known violent and possibly violent deaths of males at this point in John Lennon's life were those of two young men: Tara Browne and Stu Sutcliffe.

If it is about the death of Guinness fortune heir, Tara Browne, in a car crash. the drawing does not fit Browne's injuries and there are far more overall references in Beatles lore to the idea of Paul's death as a theme, than just that one, putatively to Browne's. (Browne was supposedly the direct inspiration for the song "A Day in the Life", though if PID is literally true, Browne's death as inspiration may be partly or wholly a cover story for how the song came to be written.)
If the drawing is about former early Beatle and artist friend of John, Stu Sutcliffe, the image is far more damaged in its head than Stu ever was from fights, and the figure in the drawing stands with dissheveled shoes, something common enough in PID-clue materials but not something affecting Stu. (Stu was in several bad fights when in Hamburg, playing with the early Beatles, but John also almost certainly once kicked him hard in the head several times in a fight. Most persons are confused as to whether both types of fights happened; it seems John did do one of them, according to the family of Stu and others there at the time. Certainly, Stu died some months later than the Beatles' stint in Hamburg, possibly as a development from internal damage to his head.)

There are several features of the image whose symbols -- in the sense that they may be literal things, inspirations for symbols -- relate to the PID theme, no matter why the PID theme exists (as hoax or for real). One feature of the drawing which relates to PID "clues" is: dissheveled shoes. Another is a head injury, particularly the cracked soft-boiled egg. This may be where the "egg man" idea comes from, in John's song "I am the Walrus" of the next year -- after Paul's putative death -- 1967; the song has many death images in it, though it is also a fantasy. The walrus theme is not present in the drawing. "I am the Walrus" imagery of a walrus became "Here's another clue for you all./The walrus is Paul" in a later song ("Glass Onion", 1968). What if the walrus idea came not only from Alice in Wonderland, but also partly from John's seeing Paul dead? How would this come to be?  It could be from a literally torn upper lip and a disfigured, puffy face.
Image comparison from this video used to make the point, hypothetically, rather well, that "walrus" imagery might well indicate the effect of head injuries.The video source for the image above is, generally speaking, not endorsed by this author.

But  then why does the figure not look walrus-like in this potentially PID drawing? A walrus-like facial deformity would not be present in this drawing, despite the gore, for this drawing keeps the imagery somewhat tame for the lower half of the head and the general body and head shape. The fact that the drawing is rather tame overall, given the injuries which already are shown, is true even if the drawing is not about PID as hoax or real.
(By the way, though John wore the Walrus mask in the 1967 film "Magical Mystery Tour" for the "I am the Walrus" song's film segment -- music video, shall we say.) John said several times, not just in song lyrics, that he associated Paul with walruses, and walruses in turn with spirits or God, which implies death and life themes at least, if not also gore.)

Is this drawing a continuation of the PID theme at all? If it is, is it just a good continuation of PID as a mere hoax? Or is it real grief being expressed privately and safely given privately to an unsuspecting young collector, to get the word out and simply emotionally share a truth without formally doing so?
Only forensic considerations about the current Beatle bandmate named Sir Paul McCartney can tell us formally. Either way, no attack on the man or anyone else is intended here, and of course he remains a valued Beatle and enjoyed musician, no matter what.

If the drawing was done sometime close to the death, John may well have needed to symbolize the death; it was so personal, he might need to exorcise his memory of the wounds, but give a rebirth (flower and sun) and comfort scene (dog), while remembering burying Paul -- digging, perhaps.
The scene would not have been done TO REACH the public, given its tone.And not all of it is exorcising horror and sadness, as I pointed out just now: it also contains sweet sublimation, religiosity/spirituality of a generalist (Tarot, symbolic) kind.
It would have exactly the features it does and be perfect as is; yet he could have put in the car, if there was one involved. If there was a car crash, in other words, it could be depicted or not, since the figure is "disembodied" (spiritualized, in a sense), like a zombie presence with solace -- a gift from John, even if the Tarot dog is also part of the reason a dog came to mind: they are faithful, loving, dogs usually are.
This figure comes at us with moments from his new life in the memory and hopes of the artist. He carries the wounds, the dissheveled shoes, the sweet face -- though macabre in reality, its simplification leads to some kind of sweetness -- and he is surrounded by spiritual, symbolic hopefulness.
A car crash could have been added or not, without losing the feel of grief and horror and hope.
I think that's why the drawing stopped without a crash. It moved to the symbolic side of things.
However, the salient item, Paul or not, is that the drawing is not mere symbol fun or Tarot: it is literal death of someone or at least literal enough that that cannot be wished away by some likeness to the Fool imagery.
And as has been pointed out, the drawing does share Fool imagery with the Tarot card of Fool (which often shows a dog, flower, Sun, with "Point 0" symbolic numbering, implying rebirth of some kind). Yet what has also been pointed out, the "Fool" idea of a head with a fool's cap and tassels is inaccurate; the man is not the "Fool", but rather the broken egg head (two ways) and gore indicate that the dark shape is a splatter with no true tassels or bells -- which would come at the ends of said tassels, not near a head, and there are no true spikes at the end, just a tiny jagged end, and the dots which some think are bells are all over the head and inside the left-right wound, so they are gore.
Drawing is discussed in detail in Part 1 of the article, as was mentioned above.

If we find the PID case is proved by forensics, other items -- such as the two photos below -- which were uncertainly related to PID, but could shed light on a larger human revelation, would become less or more important parts of the end case, the story, the proof in the non-technical sense of proof as colloquial term for overall explanation. Hence clues, false ears, the drawing, the following photos, arguments which are not absolute at this time, and so on, are included in this article. We discuss them in case they will need noting in a final assessment -- if it turns out that Paul did die and we could know it at this point.

The second, current owner of the drawing, a well known collector, Steve Paneka. He is making a definite, awkwardly clear "3" with his fingers (not even his first 3 fingers, so it is a definite effort to produce the result). Does he know or suspect that Paul died in 1966, and love the 5 rather than 4 real Beatles, if PID is literally true? If PID is literally true, there are 5 not 4 true famous Beatles, and the original were reduced to 3. Paul was also the 3rd Beatle of the final lineup to join (other than the current McCartney in 1966, if he is not the original McCartney) -- could this be why the specific finger is held down?
Ringo Starr, Beatles drummer. He, too, is not giving his two-fingered peace sign as usual; has he decided here so very unusually to indicate PID, now that the issue is getting more known again - or is he just playing on the peace sign in a strange funny way? Image found here.
1.The young man figure is missing the top of his head, with another gash through his mid-face, and wonky eyeballs or sockets. Gore dots his face and spills from his head.


2. Dissheveled shoes of a medium height, with heels. Damaged and might start falling off the feet.
One way or another -- PID clue, hoax or real, or not a PID clue -- the interpretation of the whole must include a death idea.

A missing top of head. (With gore and a second injury across the head. And if there was also a car crash, not shown, his spine might be cracked, too.)

Heeled, low boots,wonky damaged eyeballs,
disheveled, damaged fine boots (almost falling off to reveal bare feet).

With his injuries, this standing apparition of death implies a disease smell and a "sickly" feel if he touched you, though the body itself is drawn as energyless but standing and not decayed.


Here come ol' flat-top ...- Come Together (Over Me), John Lennon

You were in a car crash and you lost your hair.- Don't Pass Me By (Don't Make Me Cry), Ringo Starr
He got Walrus gumboot.- Come Together (Over Me), John Lennon

The Walrus was Paul.- Glass Onion, John Lennon
He got ju-ju eyeballs. ... He wear no shoeshine. ... He's got feet down below his knees. ... He's one spinal cracker. ...You can feel his disease.- Come Together (Over Me), John Lennon

----Art by John Lennon. Detail from complex and very atypical of young man with shovel, disturbed earth at his feet -- as if digging his own grave -- and major head wounds. This is a large drawing discussed below. Specifics of the salient head and eye injury features have been added to the image, by the author of this article (and are discussed below). Date unknown, but after June 1966 and before December 1971. Drawn on the second-last album before Paul's putative death: Butcher/Yesterday and Today. Is the album cover the direct inspiration or was it a poignant choice? We will discuss whether the drawing's injuries and tone match the front cover or not, except in the broadest sense.
Some initial questions and comments ...

Was John just angry at someone or feeling hurt? Not with diagrammatic imagery of medical injuries. This is no simplistic set of wounds; it is two-way, and quite graphic though simplified in the ultimate line work. He intends two sets of damage and has very specific intentions for the eyes. And John did not typically imagine wounds. He has to have seen this face and head somewhere to image it and simplify it in his mind. Where? Was it a photograph of some random dead person? But then why draw it so sympathetically?
Did this set of massive injuries befall Paul McCartney? Most PID clue references to injuries suggest major head wounds and decapitation or partial decapitation higher up the head ("here come ol' flat-top", "you were in a car crash and you lost you hair"/top of his head?, and some visual clues we will see). If Paul did not die, is this nevertheless one of the PID clues, as a joke hoax? What does the rest of the drawing and context indicate about whom this drawing represents?

He wear Walrus gumboot.- Come Together (Over Me), John Lennon

The Walrus was Paul.- Glass Onion, John Lennon

He wear no shoeshine.- Come Together (Over Me), John Lennon

"Gumboots" were developed from 18th-century German military boots, and were used for hunting, riding and wet weather protection. They came into use under Wellington, who had the first design adaptation made, in England. More commonly known as "Wellington Boots", they went by many nicknames. (And the term "Wellington boot" or "wellie"  is now used more commonly in England for rubber or plastic rainwear in general.) They original style was nicer than general rainboots today, had heels, were formal but simpler than the German version, as well as comfortable, roughly knee-high and made of black leather.
"Beatle boots", a slightly shorter gumboot style, preferred by Paul McCartney and the other Beatles, in the early years, were similar. Could this be where the line "gumboots" comes from in John's song, "Come Together", which  contains at least one PID idea -- the walrus idea -- and many more possible ones, or at least contains a lot more of a general death theme? And could it be why a button-down version of slightly higher shoes or Beatle boot style are on John's drawn dead young man? The figure's shoes seem to have stronger, higher heels, called "Cuban heels", which are on Beatle boots.
Beatle boots have zippers or side stretch panel areas. Could the dots on the low, dissheveled boots, with high heels, in the drawing, be not buttons but, instead, stylized zipper teeth? The dots are on both sizes of the dissheveled shoes, so it may be.
And could dissheveled, removed or damaged shoes, which each figure in the PID theme repertoire, be represented as "He wear no shoeshine," in the same song (Come Together - Over Me) in which John Lennon speaks of the man who is "Ol' Flat-Top" and "Walrus gumboots"? Indeed, dissheveled boots, low boots, could well be transformed verbally into "no shoeshine" by association.
For whatever reason.

What do these combine to say about the man who is dead? Do any of them originate elsewhere (such as in the Tarot Fool card)? Does this mean the "Fool on the Hill" Beatles song figure is in John's mind? Possibly indeed. But this is a dead man with specific injuries, so any symbolism is supportive, subordinate to the death in inspiring the drawing, in a limited sense. In other words, the man is not "the Fool" -- the dark shape coming out of his two-way cracked skull is not a fool's cap, because there is not only that top crack edge (as if it were tassels at the head, in some people's estimation), but also the other split), and fool's caps have beads or bells at the ends, whereas the dots here are along the face and into the crack below, so they are gore. But rather, the Fool concept is applied to him -- if the Tarot and song's Sun image are linked to the drawing as a whole. If we call this the Fool, then we are really (accurately) saying only that the man who is dead inspires the fool imagery to be included and it reflects onto him, so that he "becomes" the larger symbol of fool. But at root, he is a dead man, treated sympathetically, as if John loved him very much.

Already, salient diagrammatic wound features are identified. Of these we can be certain in a natural way. And we will talk of Tarot imagery and other Beatles imagery in context of the drawing. These things are less certain. We will discuss what the death features in this drawing could have come from and what is likely or unlikely about each postulate, other than Paul (as hoax or real death):if it is a simple derivation from the avant-garde butcher album image it is drawn on the back ofOr if it represents any other young men who died in John's life, besides possibly Paul====================



A Famous Political Double: Dadaev for Stalin

 Dadaev & 4 doubles fooled Stalin's closest aides, among others, for years, and Dadaev started when he was in his 20s while Stalin was in his 60s. Of course, that is for a major political reason ...
and the Beatles were a band, with families who would have to also know and stay quiet out of loyalty (at least at first, and maybe fear and loyalty later). They were, to some people, even fans, "just a band", sure; but they were also a phenomenon, and this might have seemed to be about to end, if Paul died in late 1966 ...
Of course, for Paul pre-late 1966 and post-late 1966 Paul or non-Paul, there is voice and musical style at issue. We will discuss whether there are forensic studies of the voice, and songs which are not Paul's style, which have been dismissed as age changes -- in Article part 2. Talent can be different in fact in a copyist, but of relatively high quality, and personal nuance can seem like a natural development.
But maybe there is no difference between the Paul "figure" (images of a Paul, putatively one man), from before late 1966 and as we know it later. We will discuss it.

Even if it was not done in the case of the Beatles, it CAN be done and people CAN be proud to help, happy for power, money, fame, friends, or in the case of some (especially for spies), ideological reasons, and so on.
 For example, a person can even be radically switched -- if it is done with a short contact time with a person. The phenomenon of how a person can be confused is the same, however, as it is with a more low-grade long-term switch: something dismisses the person's memory (in the case of "Person Swap" with Derren Brown, it is a big picture of the original person, so that if the dupe does question their memory, they will have some replacement idea they can choose in their minds and be confused). In the close looking and long-term double cases, such as Dadaev, if a person does question it, there is usually some sort of outright denial or justification given to them, but often a person makes his or her own excuses to himself or herself. to get the general idea, there is "person swap" with Derren Brown. It is not about Paul. ---------- One might say, just in case it is true about Paul, too: "Shock Shock Horror Horror OMG! Peo­ple Laugh When Ignorant!" They do do that. It does not mean Paul died, but people do laugh when ignorant of how anything works and can refuse to apply questions to ask if something is possible which would not normally seem to be happening. This is called a magic trick, but it is actually a very deep implication and why we have courts and the advocate system -- advocates for both sides -- to see if we are missing some aspect which we did not want to think through.
Maybe James Paul lives. Maybe he died. We will cover both sides.

John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr of the Beatles, pictured together before 1966. Later, in late 1966, did it actually come to this for a few months? Are these the three original Beatles who survived late 1966 -- and a new "Lonely Hearts" band really did form: with a new fourth Beatle unannounced to the public? Image from here.
As to the "clues": of course none can prove formally that the situation they were created about is anything but a hoax or joke. Yet, as was mentioned above: 4 were definitely planted, 1 in print, 2 visual (all in 1967, right after the putative replacement), and 1 in 1995. The criteria to say they were definitely planted are: if there is any physical (optical) way for them to be natural, no matter what symbol they showed, or, for the print one, obviously the criterion to show it was planted is if it has an overt verbal mention of Paul's having died, even as a disclaimer.

Again, if the Paul figures of different times are different people, there is no intention in this article to promote only love for James Paul McCartney pre-late 1966 and promote hate for post-late 1966 Sir Paul, putatively a different man. If they are different people, then Sir Paul would remain one of the famous members of the Beatles -- 4 or 5.
To the Beatles, however many there are.Image from Google cache image, listed as from here, but does not load from that page.

Of course, though much of the discussion herein will have to focus on the "Paul-not Paul" issues, as if the man Sir Paul McCartney were the sole person of interest in the case, he is not, and is not really singled out here, as much as that can be. Again, we will cover both sides of the issues involved and we will discuss quite a bit about other people than Sir Paul -- covering many arguments around their statements and actions, too, especially in Part 2.
Let us just look at the drawing and false ears, and then the other arguments on both sides after, and see if there is any direct forensic evidence to settle the case, including the real ears (Preface Part H), no matter on which side our belief lies about this possibly strange concept of PID -- a concept stating that the Beatles became, in late 1966, a putative "Fab Original 3" living as an unofficial "New 4".


Even if it was NOT done ...
And not that Paul would have to have been murdered for PID to be literally true, but if he was replaced, it would require help, to start and continue the ruse. Once that started, it would also mean many more people than the Beatles would want the putative cover-up to continue.


Hendrix's Last Condition: Death by Forced Red Wine(effectively a drowning of stomach and lungs)

Many people assume things which are just not so, and because of disliking the truth about something, dismiss it simply for emotional reasons. Not all things are ugly, but some are.To merely make the point ...Book which reports the Doctor's statements to the press, as well as the coroner's work. Image found here
My own comments first:
His doctor has spoken twice about the horrific amount of red wine, in surprise, it seems, as if he does not know Hendrix was not found in a pool or bathtub of red wine.
It seems that some people miss the point of the doctor's statements below: that the hair, wrap -- body ("there was red wine all over him") -- were soaked "saturated" with red wine;
the stomach and lungs were completely filled with red wine (first statement emphasizes stomach in statement about lungs but is a bit more ambiguous regarding lungs themselves, in the way he phrases the problem of the amount of red wine there; second statement clearer about the red wine in lungs, because had misspoken in terms of clarity, in his first statement, so someone commented he should have done a tracheotomy);
the doctor considered him drowned in and from red wine.
It was so unusual and complete an impression that he considered it horrific;
had probably dealt with drowning (water drowning) victims before.
Do not dismiss the salient content AND general emotional stance of the doctor.
This is not some stomach content being aspirated:
"... he had a drowning of the airways. His lungs were completely overcome by fluid."
Some vomit from some red wine guzzled, and a bit of aspiration is what the doctor is gainsaying with every part of his different statements.

---HAIR, WRAP MATTED WITH RED WINE (Doctor did not know of Hendrix himself & seems to assume he literally drowned in a strange red wine bath, not knowing he was found on his on his back, in a bed with much vomitus around him)------ "DROWNED": AS IN, WINE WAS FORCED DOWN HIS THROAT AND LUNGS ON THE BED, IS THE ONLY OPTION FOR WHAT THIS DIAGNOSIS WOULD REALLY MEAN, IN HENDRIX'S CASE: he was IN BED, long dead
Image of matted wet hair on soaked doll from hereDoctor said the red wine amount in lungs and stomach, on hair, naked drenched body and wrap around neck were "horrific" and unforgettable. Image of soaked doll dripping dry, from same source as above.
If the following information is from "gutter literature", then why the detailed medical statements and sources?
The comments about and from the doctor, below, are from here -- not a perfect site, but much of it is good research, sourced. (The information on the woman claiming to be present is also there, but I do not repost it here.) The quotes used by the author of that Website, Dr. Bannister's interviews with The Times newspaper and the BBC, were originally found in Tony Brown, 1997, Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days).
And why murder Hendrix? Some suggestions are made on the linked page, but he was connected with military, so who knows what he could have been killed for. Maybe it was more banal: a vendetta? Perhaps just knowing the following information more widely will help get the answers:
His doctor has spoken twice about the horrific amount of red wine, in surprise, it seems, as if he does not know Hendrix was not found in a pool or bathtub of red wine. .............
Twenty-three years later, information emerged which strongly suggests Hendrix was murdered. In 1993 it was disclosed that Hendrix had not strangled on his vomit, but "drowned in red wine." Dr. John Bannister was the physician—a Surgical Registrar—who worked on Hendrix initially at the St Mary Abbot's Hospital. Shortly afterwards Hendrix was seen by Dr. Martin Seifert, the Medical Registrar on duty that day.23 In an interview with The Times newspaper, published December 18, 1993, Dr. Bannister made the following statements about the death of Jimi Hendrix:

Jimi Hendrix had been dead for some time, without a doubt, hours rather than minutes. He didn’t have any pulse. The inside of his mouth and mucous membranes were black because he had been dead for some time. He had had no circulation through his tissues at any time immediately prior to coming to hospital…[Red wine] was coming out of his nose and out of his mouth. It was horrific. The whole scene is very vivid, because you don’t often see people who have drowned in their own red wine. There was red wine all over him, I think that he was naked but he had something around him—whether it was a towel or a jumper—around his neck. That was saturated in red wine. His hair was matted…The medical staff used an 18 inch metal sucker to try to clear Hendrix’s airway, but it would just fill up with red wine from the stomach…He was completely cold. I personally think he died long before. He was cold and he was blue. He had all the parameters of somebody who had been dead for some time. We worked on him for about half an hour without any response at all. There was a medical registrar, myself, nursing staff and I think one other doctor. I didn’t even know who Jimi Hendrix was. It’s tragic that such a bloke died in those circumstances.24

In addition, there was practically no alcohol in the bloodstream. Someone apparently poured red wine down Jimi’s throat to intentionally cause asphyxiation after first causing barbiturate intoxication. This person apparently slipped him a large quantity of barbiturates which caused him to go into a temporary coma. During this time his natural reflexes stopped working. This means he lost the ability to cough as a natural response to liquid going down his windpipe. Without the ability to cough he was easily drowned. And he was drowned in an extremely sinister manner. Large quantities of red wine were poured down his throat. As he strangled, he spewed huge amounts of vomit, something that normally happens with drowning victims, but according to the physician who worked on him, Hendrix did not die from drowning in his own vomit. He died from drowning in red wine.Two years later, on September 10, 1995, Dr. Bannister made additional remarks on BBC Radio One’s Wink of an Eye. The following is an excerpt:

[Hendrix] did not have an obstruction of the airways. What he had, was that he had a drowning of the airways. His lungs were completely overcome by fluid. One does a tracheotomy to get better access to the trachea and to the airways. But his problems were below that. The body was cold, there were no signs of circulation and my overall impression was he’d been dead for several hours.25
23 Tony Brown, Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days, 1997, p. 141. [The following is a note to Note 22 at jfkmontreal Webpage source, but because it is circumstantially relevant to this excerpted information, it is inserted here:] Tony Brown quotes coroner Gavin Thurston’s conclusion on Page 163, and Brown shows an "Inquisition" report—dated September 28, 1970—on Page 173, followed by the verdict of the Coroner’s Court—dated September 28, 1970—on Page 174. Neither report gives the same narrative presented by Brown on Page 163, although the conclusions match. Consequently, it is presumed that Brown obtained a transcript of what coroner Thurston said orally at the Inquest, and those oral comments were presented on Page 163.24 Ibid., pp. 142-14325 Ibid., p. 143

This blog article's author's note: since the doctor spoke of his shocking memory, it would mean that the coroner or others around that coroner are where the cover-up occurred. And so the doctor said this, and there would be a scandal? No. Not unless we make it one; the doctor did not emphasize murder, so it went unnoticed -- even by the author of the book -- nor may the doctor have even thought it was murder (posited it). He may only have thought it was obvious that the man died in some strange situation, and not know more about it. Many people do not think beyond what their immediate experience is: in this case, a dead man, a famous man the doctor did not know, dying in a strange enough way the doctor likely put an innocent "he drowned, obviously, but in red wine, and maybe these famous weird people have weird pastimes of swimming in red wine luxury" spin on it in his own mind. But the rest of us know he did not -- he was found on a bed.
So the information is out. And now promoted more fully here. So: buy the book and/or spread the information. It is up to you.



Should we not wonder what might be going on -- just in case something is going on?Of course, that is what a proper investigation does; it does not presuppose a result, but it does presuppose that results might be surprising and does the investigation nevertheless.
 Forensics are the proof either way, but circumstance is part of the final proof, to use the word "proof" to mean that we will need the circumstances (comments and so on) in the end, to see that people did speak, and what they said -- if we find first that it was done. We can use the statements as a possibility opener, along with the "clues" and false ears; we then look at forensics; and if those turn out to prove Paul was replaced with a new bandmate semi-secretly, then the statements, clues and false ears fill in some of the gaps of the final picture. Because yes, one would expect people to talk in some way at least, without being singled out and targeted, or betray others.

Ultimately, if forensics are available either way about the man called Paul after 1966, we will know whether this young man, John Lennon, below, allowed a secret to start, initially in distress -- along with Paul's family -- and whether he regretted it deeply, but also knew that he had thought it was necessary at the time, a secret which became almost impossible to reveal properly later.
Did he allow it? Can we know?

Johnny? Did you? And if you did, would your guilt and vision have shaped some of your later actions to get "some truth" as you said in your song?



For whatever reason PID clues exist (joke hoax or a secret real hoax in the sense of the public replacement of Paul),


Under any circumstance, even if Paul did not die, the following is a very odd -- gory, medically diagrammatic though simplified, sad, intimate (almost loving) and, definitely in the gory death topic, a very atypical -- drawing by John Lennon ...

----------- Fig. 1.

Opening the mind to the maybe almost impossible:
If Paul died and was replaced, again, proof could never come from the famous clues repertoire -- not as proper proof, anyway, even if those clues were done at the time to be cryptic proof. Also, if we find the Beatles circle did continue with a new lineup in secret, in a pinch, then all of them, not just the putative replacement bandmate, must be considered -- for how they must have felt, making and keeping this decision, and how the public was fooled and fooled itself.
On the other hand, it may seem risky or even impossible that anyone, especially the friendly Beatles circle, would do this, and this is often used as an argument, even as if it were an absolute argument against such a scenario. Sadly, this objection is not a guarantee, not an absolute proof that such a thing could not be done. Even if it was not done, it could be argued without knowing more about forensics either way, that at the height of the band's early success and its public tight-knit image, that indeed such a plan may have seemed necessary at the time for them all -- even to Paul's family -- to mourn in secret. And of course, if it was done, then once started, such a thing would not be easy to undo formally.
Even if Paul did not die in fact -- this is sadly not as valid an argument as you might think. Would they? Who is "they"? Family? Business people? How many would formally know? How many people get confused when meeting a person once or twice? It is often called an hypnotic effect, but it's really a distraction, a willingness not to question ordinary events. Surprisingly a lot. Even those who should be suspicious often are not, such as close aides, and get fooled by simple tricks or complicated ones. -- Just in case Paul did die and was replaced, let us think this through: What about private mourning feelings, instead of public pronouncements ... as regards the family and girlfriend, yes, the lovely Jane Asher who has never spoken about her time with Paul; there is such a thing as loyalty and getting on with one's life even in extreme situations. Whole towns do for abusers, for example. And a few threats and one (probable) murder (of Mal Evans, through corrupt police, if indeed his death was linked to his book -- famously lost, maybe found now, and perhaps containing information about PID by this insider) would all help keep things quiet, yes? Can be. Mostly loyalty -- even, in a perverse private way, to the original Paul, if you think about it: his legacy and band could continue, as the family might have thought. This does not mean it happened, but it COULD happen. So since the issue has been raised, we will ask it, trace the issue throughout many logical and evidentiary twists and turns.

... For usually these things are done for formal situations such as with politicians ...
If you were a double in name, for fame and opportunity (the Beatles were your ideal workmates), a bandmate artist in your own right as well, how would you feel about coming out? You might feel trapped by it all, yet alternate with raging fear of exposure. Would everyone blame you alone? Or blame anyone? Or would they be fascinated to know how they fooled themselves, partly, and also not overfocus on you? Only if the lattermost were true, would the main person of focus come out. This much is simply human. Others tend to focus blame on the person who helped others (and was helped) by a lie, instead of focussing on all persons involved, to understand a lie, without over-blaming for the lie.

I have indeed run into a few, who say any serious thinking re. weird & complex evidence here is merely delusional behaviour, or worse. They want to protect Sir Paul and his family from outrageous claims, if they are such. Instead of attacking anyone at all, Let's look, instead.

Maybe this is merely the figure in John's song "Come Together"? Does the song talk of death? Like this drawing, which definitely shows a death, the song seems to fit the same imagery exactly in many phrases: the ideas of "flat top (head slash, though the phrase itself probably comes from Chuck Berry), joo joo eyeballs (wonky), no shoeshine (dissheveled shoes), feel his disease (death), Come Together Over Me (over my grave)" and others do match, possibly, what the drawing shows. Sure, there are maybe also seemingly pure nonsense phrases in the song as well (does "Ono sideboard" mean anything? -- if it does, honestly this author does not know how it would relate to Paul is Dead clue repertoire).

Video here. Lyrics here.
The definite Paul connection in the song is the walrus image, as in "walrus gumboot", for whenever John mentions walruses he mentions Paul (though John wore the actual walrus mask in Magical Mystery Tour film), except once when he mentioned "God or something" in connection with the walrus idea (as a spiritual, adoration or death theme, possibly). As to gumboot, if the image has to do with Paul is Dead themes, we might think the following: Paul and his tall boots? or the putative 2nd Paul was connected with army, police/ intelligence/ upper classes, as well as music?
The lyric "He's one spinal cracker" has not yet been explained. Did Paul suffer broken bones, or make Lennon think of such things?
Not all lines seem to directly relate to a PID theme. Maybe none does.
Whatever the case, the upshot of these initial ruminations is that the drawing could be counted with Come together, and the drawing would then reinforce the sometime suspicion that the song has to do with a death, maybe even with Paul's death -- even if that death idea is a hoax.
So maybe this drawing is Paul AND the Come Together figure is Paul, even if Paul did not die. Certainly, the DRAWING shows a dead man, though it does not name Paul, for hoax or for real. If the imagery in the song and drawing are linked, they reinforce each other as PID clues: the song with walrus being Paul (for some reason) reinforcing the matching imagery in the drawing with Paul, and the drawing, definitely about death, with death matching images in the song reinforcing that the song as about death.
Why, though, such ideas seem to swirl around Paul, or even determining if the drawing and song definitely are linked with each other, are not answerable from these considerations, of course.

Did something darken Paul's best friend, John Lennon's, heart?

1. PID case both ways, plus intelligence circles' broader activity in 60s music (Right-click green name at top, to save and listen)2. PID: (More recent, less comprehensive but with some different info included)

3. John's Death -- current state of research into the death: wide-ranging, overview, complete sourcing (all major contributors to the issue of John's death are raised). Interview hour 1 is Clare Kuehn & hour 2 is "Total Info" (pseudonym) (Right-click green name at top, to save and listen)Some have suggested -- with suggestive but not conclusive evidence -- that John's death may be linked to groups which often have cultic interest in numbers of dates when doing crimes (a numerological gangland significance to the date or time of the crime). Whether, for instance, Chapman was encouraged to do the crime, consciously or under trance, or whether he did not actually do the shooting, the people who might have been around him or did it for him might have been interested in date significance. Some think all this too incredible to consider, but it is not impossible, so in passing, due to the connection to the date of Magical Mystery Tour album release in the Beatles' home country, and the connection with MMT and PID ideas, we will digress for a moment onto Lennon's assassination.------------
Aside about John Lennon's assassination:We go wide of the immediate topic of this article, but it is worth knowing that gangs, cults and intelligence services wetworkers -- assassins -- do use significant dates as fetish magic, luck, what have you. All of these have been suggested as responsible behind Chapman or instead of Chapman, putatively if he were under mind control but not to do the crime. It was the most political Beatle's death, though some think instead he was "just a musician" or could have simply been expelled if he was a political threat to creepy agendas.
Audio overview here. Right-click on green title on linked page, to save and listen to the audio. Sources are given there for what follows.
Such people include persons connected to the following scenarios:If Chapman did the crime yet was used or "handled" into wanting to do it, or under trance at times, as part of a wider conspiracy, it may be that significant dates were picked for the shooting. If he did do the killing, then persons in intelligence rogue circles and other persons around them might have had a gangland-style date interest in the date of death.If the armed outer doorman did the shooting, which was in his line of fire from his booth to the doorway, where bullets ended up, then his connections would be the ones with a gangland style date interest. One thing is for certain, he had the same name as did the head of Operation 40, the anti-Castro CIA assassination squad, and his booth was definitely in the correct line of fire. Again, those around the doorman might have an interest in cultic, magical, gangland fetish-style dates of death. Jose Perdomo is the Cuban doorman's name and the name of the CIA's top Cuban killer agent assassin's name -- innocuously or not. The doorman was hired, but sometimes people are hired for security because they do have a military or intelligence background.If the doorman was involved but not the killer, then he might have been there to oversee the killing, and "handled" Chapman in trance, while an elevator or workman guy did it. In fact, the first suspect on record -- but not booked or named, to our public knowledge, is an elevator man or workman. The first police at the scene after the killing suspected him. He could have come out of the elevator and work entrance and passed John on the elevator exit side, which is the same as the outer doorman's line of fire. In this case, the doorman is the watcher and the elevator man or handyman is the shooter, but now passing John and spinning around to shoot in the direction of the doorway, where bullets ended up.
Bullets ended up in the doorway. And hollow points (what Chapman used) usually don't pass through a person. Chapman had 5 bullets; one ended up through John but stopped in his jacket, which is to be expected. If one missed and one only grazed, that leaves three bullets. But John had serious injuries all through his left side around his heart, supposedly 4 shots hit him, and so at least two have to have exited him. Plus there are some police records which talk of three bullet holes in the doorway. If this is so, with the jacket bullet, then we are stretching credulity that Chapman's hollow points did the killing.
So there is some question as to what happened that night. There were only earwitnesses to the crime, on record.
----------------------------------------------TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figs 1, 2, 3 (with Updates)Table of Contents (with Annotated Table of Contents; Note to Translators, Technical Note; Acknowledgements)Preface (general overview)
Intro: The Rumours & "Clues"4 PartsBibliographyComments by readers


ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS:Preface: - Summarizes what will follow in main article.(A)The timeline and naming the problem.(B) Does the drawing fit the clue repertoire?(C) Clues: A repertoire of symbols or no repertoire at all?(D) Do clues mean Paul died?(E) PID film releases:  Highway 69 Entertainment's "Paul Really Is Dead: George Harrison's Last Testament" vs. Iamaphoney's "The Winged Beatle". The latter includes putative Mal Evans testimony in TWB. The testimony seems genuine upon every consideration available. Screen captures are presented.(F) Whether Paul died or didn't ... Summary of some points about the literal PID question, not clues, except PID film releases.(G) What forensics are there?(H) The ear cartilage: Proof or optical illusion?
Intro: The Rumours & "Clues" - is what can be known about the history of PID "clues" - for whatever reason they were done. Among other things, it covers, importantly, the first, most definitely planted, explicitly PID "clue" of them all, 1967 WRITTEN CLAIM OF PAUL'S DEATH. -- Also includes relatively unknown FULL FRONTAL 1967 OPD Sergeant Pepper album PATCH CLUE, etc. -- for whatever reason clues were done.
Part 1 - is about the drawing's contents in detail and how they relates to the Paul is Dead-style clue repertoire -- for whatever reason PID clues were done.Part 2 - is about common PIA circumstantial arguments against literal PID. Discusses also the currently inconclusive forensic issues. It is included for Paul is Alive (PIA) proponents, primarily, but will answer some broad questions for others, too.Part 3 - is about whether there are literal-case PID absolute arguments -- i.e., directly and carefully done forensics. Part 3 also contains a link regarding John Lennon's own death by assassination (full current info in audio overview).I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE THAT THE FORENSICS ABOUT PAUL'S FACE PRE-/POST-1966 AND HEIGHT & PALATE ARE NOT FULLY EXPLICATED IN THE PRESENT ARTICLE. I have provided some careful analysis, caveats and so on on each, but some issues require further elaboration. I have linked to those works which, properly understood, do the forensic work on photos, and have given some tips as to how to assess the quality of the studies -- to see if they are "hazy" or "not well done". But I have not YET had the time, yet, to provide simplifications of the arguments. I will be doing this in the months ahead.And finally, Part 3 has a subsection about what John said OTHER THAN DENIALS of PID planted clues of any kind, and literal PID.Part 4 - is a conclusion about the drawing, regarding how its creation indicates it was a PID "clue", for whatever reason PID clues were done at all, even if Paul didn't die.
Annotated BibliographyReader Comments
For anyone who knows my work in the subject of PID or Paul is Dead, about the idea of the death of Paul McCartney in 1966 (murder or mishap) and that there was a decision to replace Paul with someone else for the 4th (5th) Beatles member, the drawing under discussion in this post will come a welcome new development.

UPDATE Apr. 6, 2013: Happy Nat of Beatles Rarity took a look and claimed John doodled "anything anywhere", so this post is mere "over analysis". But he didn't realize that even if Paul didn't die, no, John did not doodle large, medically generally accurate violent injuries and death by violence! This is unlike Jim Morrison -- & Yoko Ono, who recently tweeted her art piece image of John's bloody glasses from John's assassination.

UPDATE: Apr. 23, 2013: Someone yesterday apologized to Yoko Ono for retweeting her this blog (b4 being aware of its contents) & claimed I was rude/ranting. Yet Yoko Ono herself suddenly "followed" me, instead, on Twitter today! Is she "just weird" as some people think, is she simply supporting openmindedness, or maybe continuing a "clever PID hoax" from the Beatles for some reason? Or is this her quiet endorsement of this blog post and PID? She also "follows" Iamaphoney, filmmaker of PID film "The Winged Beatle".
If Paul died:ALL INSIDERS, PLEASE NOTE that I do not hate or malign the 2nd Paul McCartney as a person or musician or, beyond lying and any literal crimes during the process, seek to "expose" (maliciously or smugly) anyone who has kept this stuff under wraps officially.

My apologies that the more complex style argument style became necessary for those whose assumptiveness tends to get the better of them, on both sides of the PID/PIA case. The simpler form remains in the basic parts of the article after the Preface.

This article is in large part indebted to others, of course, whom I thank immensely for tracking materials on both sides of the PID question for so long. Many people have contributed, however angrily at times, to pull together parts of the case around whether Paul died in 1966 or not. The presentation of the material's finer points and the context given here is arranged mostly in my own fashion, for which I alone take responsibility. Also, and most important to me, the main original focus in the article is my own work: that the drawing is a PID style clue, whether PID is determined to be literally true or not.END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................PREFACE:<<<>>>

Welcome to all viewers.If you like or learn anything from this blog post, please spread the word about what you've learned and also please send people here, to view it.




Again, as to whether James Paul McCartney died in late 1966, NO so-called clue, nor the drawing, if it is in the repertoire, can prove it. We will not treat the discussions of clues as proof of death or life, for Paul.And we are well aware that most would say:So, how reassuring.
Well, a big thank you to the maker of that image!

,,, But ...Is it so?Can we know?Since as we have remarked several times now, clues do not prove anything after the fact, even if they were done actually as proof. Is is there another way to know if there was a death and replacement?And what of the drawing as part of the clue repertoire?

Fig. 2.  PID, Paul is Dead: a John Lennon ugly joke or money ploy? Or did Paul die in a grisly manner, somewhat as pictured above?IF, indeed, the drawing is PID-themed, but PID is itself is only a money ploy or joke, Why did he do a relatively private drawing of a young dead man with clear, though simplified, 2-way head injuries?

(Image: "Batboy" screaming as ugly, dead Paul McCartney, uncredited. [Image cached here; from this blog.])



If he was asked in, he was asked in, and has been a Beatle for us all, as well as for himself and other Beatles for whatever reason they needed him.


Besides any crimes committed because of cover-up mentality over the years, or in order to create the cover up in the beginning ... the human reality of feelings and fears, if this was done, is not a crime and would deserve forgiveness and openness, and a realization of how we fool ourselves ...... If this was done.

This article is long. It is more like a small book. It will require several sittings to read in full. I will be working on further tightening the material and organization, but it will remain long.

What does a PID literal case require?
First, it requires recognition that if the clues suggest Paul died, then there is a postulate to be investigated. This means that Paul's continuance after late 1966 must be proved as much as Paul's death must be proved, for the postulate to be resolved either way. I mention this not to incense people who believe Paul continued alive after 1966, but rather to be rigorous about what a proof entails. I hope people who are not undecided, but rather are on the side of Paul's having lived will read the article, as well as those who are on the side of Paul's having died, and those who are undecided.
Pointing out the obvious:If you had fingerprints which differed for the two periods in question for Paul McCartney as a famous figure (pre- and post-1966), you would have to go back to see how you had been fooled. You would have to recognize that you had a misimpression of two similar or partly similar persons. You would have to think through how you were lied to and why: for example, was it all with malice or not? Fingerprints are not the only way to know: voice harmonics (currently unconfirmed), and ears (properly understood) and palatal (palate) space in the mouth do the same for an argument. We will get to these by and by. If these show that "Paul" is different before 1966, you will have to rethink what you thought you saw.Before you even know that it is worth looking for proof of death or life, though, you must begin to wonder, or you will never know for sure, though you will think you do.

WELL, IF James Paul McCartney DIED, THER WOULD BE AN EMOTIONAL NEED FOR THIS IMAGE BELOW:1. because of a need in 1966 to not have him die, and2. EVEN TODAY, there would be a need for the image below as well, FOR SOME CANNOT STOMACH THE IDEA OF A LIE:

And if he died in fact, perhaps that solace, above, would not work, so ...maybe the poster should say,instead:



For those who don't know: "PID" means "Paul is Dead", whether as a hoax or ploy idea, or a set of symbolic clues to the putative real death of original John Paul McCartney in late 1966. Of course, if JPM died, then PID would mean also that he was replaced with a new bandmate, whose name we don't know for sure, but who goes by the name since, and that many (though not all) in the Beatles circle knew and know.
"PIA" means "Paul is Alive", a counter claim, saying that Paul is Dead is a hoax, that is is not reality that there was a new bandmate after late 1966, having a hidden Beatle name. Those who claim this assume that there is no suggestion of Paul's death in the Beatle repertoire (audio, visual, interviews, etc.), or say there is, but it was for some other reason that it was done: a joke, money ploy (publicity stunt), cruel manipulation based on another car crash, symbolic representation of drug-taking habits of Paul causing ego death, etc.


In order to deal succinctly with the timeline around Paul, I will need to name the pre-1966 and post-1966 figure or figures we know as Paul. Though it is really only descriptive, the typical term for the putative replacement bandmate, "Faul" (from "False Paul" or "Fake Paul"), seems to me to have a whiff of the derogatory. So I will call the man post-1966 "Sir Paul", in order to remain neutral. After all, as we'll see in Part 2, though the case for Paul's being alive is not absolute, as an argument, anyway, the case for what may have occurred in the circumstances, if Paul died is not absolute either, so why blame people for circumstances we can't be sure of even if we can know Paul was replaced!
If Sir Paul was asked in, he was asked in.So I choose to be neutral about his taking all the blame, if there was indeed a replacement and will call him Sir Paul, not Faul, to be neutral about about the putative "Fab 5th" as a person. For neutrality, I have been accused, by some, of being too kind; my neutrality is first a respect of the music and friendships in the Beatles circle; my neutrality is second a conservative approach to the material, for the sake of the often polarized readers on both sides.
I intend  the neutrality of tone:
To help the neutral reader or open-minded PIA reader to read the material here, whatever the truth of PID.To respect the humanity of the 5th Beatle, the 2nd Paul -- if such he is, and we will eventually argue he is.
I intend the neutrality of argument style:For honesty. In no way should anything be represented as surer than it is. (Paul is Alive advocates will be grateful about this, but will find their points also questioned.)For honesty. In no way should some odd possibility, though yet unproven, be left out, undiscussed at all, no matter how odd. (Paul is Dead advocates will be grateful about this, but will find that Paul is Alive advocates have some technically accurate arguments -- taken in isolation, anyway -- which can be stretched to make sense.)
Hence, I will treat everything rigorously; all items which are knowable are treated and explained, but anything with the slightest doubt will be mentioned along with the doubt, not over-claimed, even if the item seems likely.
Perhaps, before covering all the objections to a literalist PID situation in detail, the reader will find helpful the following (long) summary of some of the major ideas floating out in the public on both sides of the question.

Is this drawing in the theme of, or style of the so-called PID "clues" -- whether PID "clues" were done for a hoax or, instead, for real revelation? If it is in the PID style, then no matter what, it is inconvenient at least prima facie, for PIA (Paul is Alive) proponents, because it cannot be easily explained away on its own: it was privately done, is of a poignant nature, and is atypical for the artist.
Yet if, instead, Paul died, followed by the sometimes-termed "exact double" playing as Paul after late1966, then this drawing is the most poignant, personal clue and expression of grief over Paul from the Beatles circle among the clues, not to mention that if Paul died and it is about that, it is also currently the fullest information source we have about the literal damage done to Paul at death.
In late 1966, IF ... IF James Paul McCartney died, would the suspicion be that the public would ditch the whole phenomenon (not just a band)? Would the real rockers (John Lennon, etc.) and their immediate supporters (Epstein, etc.) have wanted to continue though they lost a friend? And would various persons in intelligence services, politics, the corporate world (partly for money), have helped them out ...? Could families and friends have stayed quiet -- or did they, entirely? What would motivate them: how could they reconcile loyalty to a deceased with loyalty to the living?

Sure. Just not all things.

Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones was not replaced; this is often raised as a reason why Paul McCartney would not be. But Jones was already being booted, and the Stones, important as they became, were not the unique singing and friendship duo of Lennon-McCartney or the unique group phenomenon the Beatles were.
By the way, as to "nice" vs. "not nice", I and others have been accused of being paranoiac for raising other death scenarios than the putative McCartney death. Let us get this out of the way for those people: according to new information, Brian Jones was sadly also very likely murdered, as was long suspected. Read all about it: here and here and here and here.

But since there is no court case about it (and likely will not be), we have to realize that only by at least wondering if the reportage is good, will there be more information forthcoming, if it is true. There was a deathbed confession, supposedly, in a movie which came out to a few people and then was not released (are you surprised? or is this a lie?). How widely or quickly the murder event was planned through a ring, if at all, is uncertain though likely. One witness (not at the scene, but in testimony) claimed that Jagger and Richards went to the house to get the "Rolling Stones" name transferred from Jones four hours before the death. The testimony says that tempers flared and Richards pulled a knife to calm the situation at the time, as peacemaker. Someone (not Richards) might have arranged the actual death with Thorogood, for a few hours later. It could have been in the heat of a moment, but there is more likelihood there was a group wanting him dead. Richards suspected Jones was murdered. Corrupt cops closed the inquiry then and did not reopen it in 2010.
An early publicity photo of the Rolling Stones, from 1964. Ironically, Brian Jones (far left) is separate from the main group, and at opposite ends also, compared with Mick Jagger's position in the line (far right). This symbolic photographic happenstance actually occurred later, in band relations, right before Jones' death, when Jones was ousted from the band and Jagger and Jones were on particularly bad terms, especially on the day of his death, if the testimony is correct. Image from here.
I am more suspicious of the mainstream media than many persons, but I try to be careful in assuming they are misreporting. There were longtime suspicions about the death and, if there is no court case (and it is not corrupt if there is one), we must use what is turned up by journalists, and judge that. To assume these articles cover no facts is as irresponsible as assuming there are no lies anywhere and how to detect likely lies.
However, some who distrust the mainstream media journalism to the point of prejudice (often specifically of one side or another, left or right, the latter being what the Daily Mail usually represents), have gone so far as to suggest that because the confession and cop's story cannot be verified by me, I ought not to suggest that the journalism is likely fine.
Granted, on its favourite subjects, the Daily Mail is ideologically propagandistic. And yes, major rock stars are often presented as if they are "Left" wingers, or they often are. But does the sleuthing of the Mail have to be sloppy here? It does not read as if it is uncareful; the Stones are a pride item for Britain, the Daily Mail's location; and even if they are raising suspicions to make the Stones look bad, it turns out the first article does not make them look bad, but Thorogood himself. The second article casts more suspicion and motive options, and the title overemphasizes a distraught Richards, but the article is rather balanced.
So maybe instead, the long-time suspicions and silence and fear by witnesses was justified, in the Brian Jones death case. (But still, there is always one person who cannot believe Lennon was a threat to George Bush, Sr. in 1980, or that Paul even could possibly have been replaced, and who bleeds these issues together, resentfully stating that because we cannot be certain the anonymous policeman told the truth, and this author was not present for the confession, Brian Jones has to have died by drugs in the pool and the whole effort here in this article and in those news articles just cited is mere paranoia.) You decide.
Brian Jones (left) and Jimi Hendrix (right). Image undated. Both singers ended up dead at age 27, but also from murder, if all indications are correct. The causes of the seeming murders are likely very different. -- It is ironic there is such a nice photo of just the two of them together, for me to include here in this article. Image found here.
To anyone not living with their head under a rock, this is a ridiculous statement, but let us take it on for a second. The idea of "control" is a complex one; sometimes used to mean direct trauma shortcircuiting of a person's emotions under one-on-one torture and hypnosis, "control" can also mean information control, suggestions of how to approach a problem (such as the ideology of war or union rights). Music is a powerful motivator, but usually not preachy. If stars have something to say, their charisma can give their words extra punch. Lennon had that, at least later in his life than 1966, against the Vietnam War. But in 1966, would "control" of the band be primary in the efforts of intelligence services? Maybe, maybe not. There are Dr. Strangelove types, trying out mass influence in different ways, not wanting stars to speak of certain things. But the Beatles were also much loved and wanted for British loyalty, money, power. They may have gotten help -- from the persons attached to protect them, and for whom doubling would not be a weird idea. We do not know, but the possibility is there. And did the CIA chime in after a while, too?


We cannot use clues as proof in a formal sense to say Paul died. Voice prints have been done -- the formal study is unavailable but did conclude a difference, but without double checking the foremal study, we cannot know whether distortion of voices was accounted for, since we know they did distort voices as well. Modern computer tests show a difference, but no-one has yet duplicated or properly written formally about these, so this author cannot comment.
Fingerprints and DNA are unavailable. Some would say this is quite appropriate, some would say "just get some", and some would point out that it would be great to have them. For ...
Most people known that you had fingerprints which differed for the two periods in question for Paul McCartney as a famous figure (pre- and post-1966), you would have to go back to see how you had been fooled. You would have to recognize that you had a misimpression of two similar or partly similar persons. You would have to think through how you were lied to and why: for example, was it all with malice or not?
But fingerprints are not the only way to know: voice harmonics (currently unconfirmed), and ears (properly understood) and palatal (palate) space in the mouth do the same for an argument. We will get to these by and by. If any of these show that "Paul" is different before 1966, you will have to rethink what you thought you saw, if you do not see a salient difference in the man, for the time periods for what is supposedly one man. If there is no proper forensic comparison or the comparisons show sameness, then we have a definitely same man Paul McCartney.

We will even be covering some interesting optics perspective laws, along the way. This should be fun, for some!

Surface objects (dots) retain position on either side of mid-line, no matter how or how much they are foreshortened (in perspective). This will be important. -- See Preface part H. (Error in text on drawing above: the perspective types are bad, false perspective, 2-pt and 2-pt respectively. Something technical on the blog keeps me from deleting and replacing this image without deleting most of the rest of this section.) 3-pt perspective would adjust the back edges of the Xs in the 2-pt perspectives, here labeled as 3-pt. In all cases, the X changes at the edges, but not the centre point relative to those edges which change. In other words, the orange and green surface features (dots) always fall on either side of the mid-line, no matter what. See below for 3-pt perspective. 1-pt perspective would be very close to the part labeled 2-pt, but the angles would converge a bit.

Unfortunately, some persons are now claiming willfully that anything can be done to a photo and no-one can tell. This is ludicrous: certain kinds of changes are detectable. And certain things do not require knowing camera distance. It depends on the thing one is questioning in the photo comparison, and how different they are in certain ways.


And what about these ... For example: these are not absolute proof on their own, merely suggestive. But these are not doctored (show no signs of it) ... Do heels or platforms have to be very large to account for this:Slightly low camera angle in the photo above reduces Paul slightly but not much. Maybe it is just enough, with added heels, to make the following just fine ...
Is Sir Paul in platform shoes? Or just heels? Or is this all about camera angle? Maybe. We'll see this problem recur.
So, no, this particular comparison is not absolute of itself. It is presented to give a sense of the problem, and thus to show that proper forensics -- special questions must be asked of the photographs -- must make the point either way ON SPECIFIC BODY PARTS, if possible, and in specifically controlled conditions wherever possible, such as full frontal faces compared only for certain proportions. Such isolated issues can resolve other suggestions from photos, either way -- for Paul's continuance after 1966 or not, as if they were fingerprints.
Now that the suggestion is made from the clues, that Paul died, the issue (worth settling or not), must be settled either way only on forensics properly done.
Certainly, however, though, the PID issue is not PRIMA FACIE as weird as some think.

We don't need to know if Paul died, in order to assess the most general aspects of drawing's style content as a so-called clue or to understand the position of clues or the reality of some of them, no matter why they were created.
Some people think there are NO clues at all. There are at least four, however, which are not merely symbols or otherwise obscure in meaning, or debatable as to whether they are deliberate items.
(See "Intro: The Rumours & 'Clues'", below, for more information on these four definite so-called clues -- for whatever reason they were planted.)
The rest of the "clues" each can be argued, strictly speaking, as perhaps not even being planted ideas (though for some this is stretching). That is, if one really wants to, many can be argued as not even existing in the repertoire, for whatever reason that that repertoire was created in 1967.

No. That is, not on their own. Like some things from a murder scene, which may have a bearing on knowing what happened, but are not of themselves proof of the event.

This is true about the drawing in isolation, too. If it is PID-style, it is as all the clues are: indeterminate proof (non-proof) that Paul died. HOWEVER, they are called "clues" by convention. This is because they do suggest the idea that Paul died.

Again, one cannot argue FROM the clues, that Paul died. One cannot even rightly call them clues in the strictest sense, until after one uses other, forensic clues, to determine if they are about what they suggest: a death of Paul. One has only a postulate from the clues, a mere suggestion. At that point, the forensic debate must begin. If Paul was replaced, it must be known from forensic considerations, of course. After that, one would return to the clues for more information or simply to point out that tongues wagged, i.e., there was the psychologically predictable leak most persons deny occurred.
So, even if "clues" were done as real clues to a real death, when they were created, we cannot USE them as real clues, only as initial suggestion. In that sense, they are part of the process of making a proof, a part of the real clue-finding process, but they are not, strictly speaking, clues -- for our purposes of investigating the death or life of McCartney in 1966. If they were done to be proof at the time they were thought up, this is a different issue. They are not proof after the fact, but they may have been done for that reason. As such, the suggestion they make of a death has to be taken seriously long enough to entertain the hypothesis fully: and proof must be found of Paul's life or death after late 1966, if proof (real proof, not impression) can be found either way.
(E)THE FILMS ON PID: "HARRISON'S LAST TESTAMENT" VS. IAMAPHONEY'S "THE WINGED BEATLE", ETC. ... MAL EVANS' LOST BOOK????"Harrison" film:The "Harrison" film is extremely misleading in general, though someone went to a great deal of effort to present it as a real film of testament, when it came out – even making putatively real packaging, as if tapes were sent from George Harrison. It used a bad voice actor for George, but fooled some people at the time, since there was no disclaimer at the end. After the debates raged and the damage was done, it and many PIA (Paul is Alive) proponents purport to laugh off its misleading material AND ALL OF PID as a joke. If it is disinformation (part truth, part falsehood, sowing confusion and dismissiveness into discussions of PID logic on either side), it was effective.The "Harrison" film might also be serious distraction disinformation for another reason: it came out at a time when a person calling himself Iamaphoney had his work getting known widely.
A good summary of the mistakes or disinformation in the film can be found here. (Please ignore the overreaching comments at the beginning, in which, in passing, a bad video image of Sir Paul -- "Paul" or Paul -- singing "Hey Jude" is thought to look like a full-face prosthetic. Once some people take on the issue, even if they are otherwise careful people, they can suggest things which do not turn out to have merit. The page about the movie is otherwise very good.)
Among many aspects of the film which seem to be major disinformation about the pro-PID case, i.e., aspects which make the issue look utterly confusing and inaccurate are the association in the film of PID with the definitely original James Paul McCartney: the film discusses images of Paul and other things on Rubber Soul (1965) album and Nowhere Man (Feb. 1966) single album, as if they had the putatively different man, later named Sir Paul on them. And also Revolver (early-mid-1966), Yesterday and Today (mid-1966). The impression is of the wrong photos of each period -- conflating the two men, if they are two -- and as if ANY song lyric becomes a "clue" from Beatles songs can be in a PID case, which is not true, though a few lines have been debated as less clearly clues.
Another aspect is the way the film acts as if Sir Paul was never with Jane Asher, but shows a photo of Sir Paul, i.e., post-late 1966, with Jane -- one where they walk in a graveyard, as a matter of fact, which might itself be a publicity photo with a PID clue in it. The photo, by the way, is taken with a strange camera angle and lens, distracting from the fact that he is clearly higher (taller) in how he can grab her higher on the photo -- than Paul pre-1966 ever did; but maybe he was in very high heeled shoes.
The "Harrison" film is oversimplified and misleading: it sows confusion, leaves out information, ultimately demeans the case for literal PID by mere implication, so that even if PID is untrue, the film is no good standard either way and, moreover, was released when the films of the anonymous “Iamaphoney” series were gaining much attention. The latter films are radically different in quality of tone, information and general quality, than the “Harrison” film.Iamaphoney films:The Iamaphoney series (including the free Youtube films in the "Rotten Apple" -- RA -- series and "The Winged Beatle" -- TWB -- film), chock full of little-known items, is, by contrast, likely made through Beatle insider Neil Aspinall's company, as a revelation or conversation starter. These films contain no misleading Beatles history or oversimplification of the events of a putative PID scenario; there are some misleading edits, which create a mood, or impression, but are easily identified and are not central to the claim.Moreover, the main Iamaphoney film provides a new piece of evidence at the end. Viewers who do not watch passively will notice that the key item in the Iamaphoney films is the page at the end of the film. It is putatively from MAL EVANS' LOST TYPEWRITTEN, HAND-ANNOTATED BOOK: "Living the Beatles Legend". It is not from his now-found but mostly unpublished diary.Mal was killed (murdered?) by Los Angeles police in 1976.  Iamaphoney's TWB movie claims, albeit with no backing evidence, that he had just asked Sir Paul for royalties on the songs "Fixing a Hole" and "Sergeant Pepper", to which he and Sir Paul co-wrote lyrics, in late 1966. (Wikipedia mentions this on their Mal Evans page, citing his diary but not his radio interviews also making the claim. Wikipedia does not mention the co-writing on its main pages about the Beatles and Sir Paul, aka Paul McCartney.) He was one of the 2 main Beatles roadies. Neil Aspinall, later head of the Beatles' company, Apple Corps, was the other roadie. Mal went to Kenya with Sir Paul in late 1966 in acknowledged history.
Is this item iself mere hoaxing? We will see that it is not likely, at least outside of the supposed low likelihood of a double's having been used after a death of Paul. Ignoring whether Paul's death seems likely to the reader, the item itself has all the earmarks of genuineness of Mal's thought style. But even with those earmarks (and even if Paul died too!), technically speaking, it is possible that this is a fake item about the death or the non-death, unless we have other corroborating sources about it.
Screen shots of the putative Mal Evans book page below are as follows:Cover of book, supposedly. Says "RIP" in tooled leather or pressed paper. (Title of work itself was "Living the Beatles Legend". Unshown here, though there is a paper shown in TWB ("The Winged Beatle" movie and elsewhere), with the title. Without handwriting analysis, it would be impossible to know if the title page is from the same book or if the handwriting is definitely Mal's. The style of the overall work -- page -- we have, however, certainly argues strongly for Mal's having composed it. Anyway, the title page is shown elsewhere.)Full page. Bottom obscured. (Note that when the 2nd image flashes -- see part 5 below -- it's the bottom obscured part, unobscured.)Full upper unobscured portion.Slight close-up more, of upper unobscured portion but now leaving out a couple of lines at bottom of the unobscured portion.2nd flashed image, now showing most of lower part of obsured portion.The obscured word "Nairobi" and phrase from another and earlier video leak. When shown in The Winged Beatle, the area of the text here only says "They did a good job in [obscured]".  The video this screen capture is from not labeled as being by Iamaphoney but names dead "MalEvans" as poster of the video. (This is common with Iamaphoney work: he plays or they play a lot with accounts and mixing up where imagery is shown. From this and from reason, if Paul is dead, it seems there is a faction fight within the insiders, so in order to put out the material in any revealing way, it is split up. If it is all a hoax, of course, one would have to explain this how? Of course, that it is a very -- and increasingly -- complex hoax. But such a hoax now fits exactly what a real reveal would be, if even the reveal were half resisted by insiders.)1. Front slipcover for Mal Evans' lost book, supposedly.
2. The Winged Beatle movie Mal Evans Page image 1. This is the whole page, but note the bottom is obscured mostly -- through a deliberate blur.Distracts passive viewers from the bottom segment. Bottom section  will be shown, however, in Flashing image 2 (see #5 below).
3. Full unblurred part of main page. Some items within it are blurred. And some partial blurs which detract from the omissions are also present. -- This is my own enlargement of the image while it enlarges on the screen. The text is clearer when it stops moving on the film ... which shows in next point (point 4), but there the bottom line or two are cropped b/c of film's close-up. So I include this one. ---- General notes on content:Note the Context: timing is the return from Mal and Sir Paul from Kenya, late 1966: time is firing of George Kelly (word handwritten at top, partly blurry). Kelly was Paul's butler (not everyone would have kept their mouth shut initially). The rest of the page speaks ofa putative meeting about the new bandmate secret, subsequent emotions and early rehearsals for Strawberry Fields and Mal's personal reactions. Phrase "THEY DID A GOOD JOB IN [OBSCURED]" contains an obscured word here, which will be shown to be "Nairobi" in point 6 below unobscured, from a different Iamaphoney-related video.  Also note several lines below last word "album" are obscured here as well. The first few lines of the obscured lower portion is shown in the 2nd time the image flashes, this time in close up, with the words mentioning being at "THE CLINIC IN KENYA", point 5 below. Also, Mal is calling him Paul by this point in the book (if he's not Paul, that is, Mal is calling him that by this point). Right after the comment about "They did a good job in Nairobi" come "It was really happening" and "It was like we had known him forever."
4. Film Enlarged the basically unblurred part of the text of the page, so it's naturally bigger and clearer than in point 4, but couple of lines ended up cropped at bottom. This is because the image has moved IN the film; the bottom section was blurred, and the rest comes forward BUT this leaves off the last couple of shown lines by the time it fades.This image is taken from just before the fade.
Fig. 5.  The 2nd flashed image. Shows most of what was blanked out in the full page. Why? Mentions clinic in Kenya. Doing the page view this way means the words become semi-hidden evidence, for many passive viewers pro- or con-PID. This protects the psychology of many, if this is a true leak. SEE NEW ITEM ADDED HERE, BELOW FIG. 6. The word at almost the bottom right is moustache.

6. This is part of the page, part from the mostly unblurred portion of the full-page image. [A technical note: It looks physically distressed (damaged) unlike in the upper images. But if you look carefully, the general blurriness in images above shows the rip near the word "boys". It is also possible the the upper ones were smoother facsimilies, for easy lighting, and the tear got into the Xerox or scan as a dark mark.] -- Either way, the word Nairobi is now filled in. This comes from a different video, separated from The Winged Beatle. Only dedicated researchers would bother to put these things into the same context as we're doing here, so that the full non-passive attention span can learn what half of the Beatles' circle, it seems, wants to say. -- Is John Lennon correct, when he says "A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words"? (Reference given at end of Part 3 of article.)

UPDATE JUL. 11, 2013: "We were plating [playing] around with [the idea of a] moustache ..." Note the word at the bottom section "mou ..." is completed here, compared to the cut-off version in the flashing image in TWB (i.e., see my Fig. 5.) ------------- This document image (even if it's a xerox/scan from the real page, which seems to be the case as shown in the crumpled page in Fig. 6, above, where the crumpling shadow is apparent here but not as clearly) comes from a "gift" from Iamaphoney to researchers who were interested in his work, putting out this blog over the years before TWB came out. ----- This document - copy of an original or original (I think it's a copy, to make it clearer), is clearer than in the video TWB, of course, so it's useful in that way, too.


Surprisingly few commenters on the movie have bothered to study the page, though it is the climax to the movie. It is shown twice, once a partly obscured whole page, once a mostly clear bottom section which had been completely obscured. The Nairobi reference is specifically blanked out in the mostly unobscured top portion in the first image in TWB film, but is shown, as we have seen, in an earlier putative leak.

As we`ve seen, the page speaks of a "clinic in Kenya" and "Nairobi" and how the "clinic had done a good job", while the context for the comments shows that the important members of the Beatles circle had gathered, were "astonished" and "couldn't believe it was really happening", while grief and impotent rage affect some, including Mal, as speaker.

The time context is the firing of Mr. Kelly, the private housekeeper for Paul, without telling him why, and which distressed Mal (according to the page, but also fits Mal's very personal nature). The time, therefore, was right after Sir Paul returned from Kenya.

The context and comments cannot but mean, if genuine, that a pro-British colonial style hospital in Kenya had performed initial plastic surgery on Sir Paul, during his acknowledged visit in late 1966.

If the page is genuine, it is direct testimony in words, just as the drawing of Lennon's dead young man presented in the blog (uncontestably done by John) is, if Paul died, the best visual and most poignant semi-ambiguous ("clue") testament.The page provides information on the putative aftermath of choosing to hide the identity of the new bandmate, not on the death of Paul, unlike the drawing by John Lennon, if it is not only of the Paul is Dead theme, but if it is and that theme is about a real death of Paul.This is not a page from his once-lost diary. The lost diary has been acknowledged as found, now, though very few excerpts have been published from it. The diary's style and interviews with Mal show that the thought habits and language style of Mal are reflected in the book page above, if it is such. It may well be there are things people don't want coming out, in the diary, too, but this page is not from the diary. This page is a mid-narrative story with edits.
If this book page is genuine, or a copy of the genuine page, of course, then obviously the contents are our first definite witness testimony about events to do with Paul's death, if he died.
Is it genuine?It has all the marks of age, style, Mal's general mode of thought and types of concerns (hard to fake) and phrase-specific (easier to fake) manner of speech. It could be authenticated by handwriting comparisons, too, if we had them, for there are written corrections on the typed page.It also truly seems to be from a continuum of natural storytelling; the types of chosen phrases in it, not just that it is from a position in a plot, indicate mid-stream thinking. This is hard or impossible to fake. There is a naturalness to the corrected text, as what would come to mind in a genuine author, speaking from experience, not explaining everything and finding there are not only better ways to express the ideas, but that every time the idea comes out, it is different; in one place it's "in Nairobi", in the corrected part it's "clinic in Kenya", and in neither case is there explanation, because the author had, it seems, written the rest of the story about that already in previous pages.Any storyteller (or moviemaker or artist will tell you for their media): the way to make something incomplete sound or look natural is to actually write (or draw, film, etc.) more, flesh it in, then edit down, rather than write only part of a story and hope it sounds natural. If this is a fake, more was written to achieve the naturalness of dovetailed expressions in it, then it was edited down to look like a page with fake edits. -----(F)Whether Paul died or didn't ...SUMMARY OF SOME POINTS ABOUT THE LITERAL PID QUESTION, NOT CLUES -------------

We will cover all major questions (PIA objections, PID main doubts and alternate, options of interpretations) in detail in Part 2, but first off, let it be said here once and for all, that almost everyone thinks -- at least at first -- that their pet objection or support to the idea is the "key" to the idea of the continuance or demise of Paul McCartney.
Yet some arguments have more meat to them for PIA and for PID, while some do some not, at least at this time. None of the following and other objections mentioned in Part 2 of the main text,would be absolute arguments on their own (human likelihood arguments),or would be absolute in this case (alibis disappear quickly in this case, even if Paul is Sir Paul),or is absolute at this time (DNA, etc., are unavailable for proper control testing) ...
... except ear cartilage and palatal space properly understood, and facial craniometrics properly understood, if good sample photos are available and properly assessed. (See Preface part (I) for ear cartilage, Part 3 for the others.)
The point of the article remains the rather shocking drawing John did, because its poignancy combines with grisliness in a terribly atypical fashion for John. But at times, we will mention PID arguments and counterarguments. If you don't find your pet issue in this summary, wait for Part 2. The full set is addressed there at length. Also, if you first encounter your "issue", below, it may not be fully handled; don't assume therefore, please, that that is all there is to the issue in my text.


Whoever Sir Paul might be, if he's not Paul:

1)       But WHY???? Beatlemania was not only some enthusiasm, a bit of craziness. Beatlemania was a feedback loop: the more that increased numbers of people enjoyed the Beatles, the more the phenomenon spiralled into hysteria. Did it mean everyone was hysterical all the time or ever? No. But it touched everyone who ran into it in some way. In 1966, in spite of negative hysteria (in the US Bible Belt areas), if Paul died, more would have broken than a few hearts. The blowback socially could well have been intense, if the Beatles had continued in any way after, with or without a formal new bandmate. ... Or so the Beatles and companies, intelligence services for British and US crowd control, and so on, might well have believed. To get a sense of the extent of Beatlemania is hard from the present as a vantage point; it was in some ways a bit of the same as always happens with heartthrobs in mass adoration, but in some ways it contained all sorts of exaggerations of response from people. A good view on average fans and their love of the Beatles (with normal behaviour) and their Beatlemania (exaggerated and sustained response) is in this book.2)     Sir Paul could have known the band before, maybe as a friend or body double and talented fellow musician, artist, or avant-gardist (Sir Paul was known to like William S. Burroughs and aspects of Crowley -- not necessarily do we know if it's the sinister side) ... See Part 2 for this and more.3)       The reason Paul may have died is unknowable at this point, even up to murder ... See Part 2.4)       The Beatles themselves would not have planned the cover-up as a “plot”, that is, perceived themselves to be “plotting”. The idea of a cover-up of Paul's death, if it occurred, is actually a plot, but would be seen as a mere “idea”, done in a pinch – and idea, a plot technically speaking only – an idea which got out of hand. The idea thus has a way of being psychologically viable; feeling themselves to be plotting (with nasty overtones), they would not do it, it is true. If they covered up the death, it would have been in a pinch, fearful of losing the band's viability, and would not have been without serious grief and guilt conflicts, plus would have heightened their awareness of political and corporate lies. See Part 2 for more.The timeline of late 1966 (see Part 2) provides just the required hiatus and trip to Kenya, in which a clinic in Kenya could have performed initial plastic surgeries on the new bandmate, if he was one. And Kenya had pro-British colonial ties, for one or two people there to have been given knowledge of the meaning of their act, with loyalty and maybe even having more involved intelligence ties. Either way, the opportunity, means and motives are already possible in the known history. See Preface part (G) below for what seems to be a leak from the lost book by Mal Evans (typewriter and handwriting) about the Kenya trip.After the putative change, friends and family, some business contacts (fewer than might be thought) would notice or be involved directly in the cover-up. Those that did, would reasonably feel loyalty to the band, the meaning to the public. Yes, people can feel that their grief and respect are private, that they do no harm to the dead to keep memory alive more ACCURATELY privately, while keeping famous memory alive and legacy continuing for the WORK publicly with a lie, and clues as partial public expression (they did not actually try to get away with it completely, if it happened and there are real clues meaning real death, as distinct from real clue repertoire but only to joke). See Part 2.5)       At least in a cover-up process, there would have to be an intelligence infiltration influence on events. This is a given, if identity and death were concealed in a famous person in modern times. Intelligence circles may even have suggested the solution of using a secret new bandmate who tries also to double for the former one. (Further, IF it happened, the Beatles & their family & business circle could have easily suffered threats & blackmail later on other issues.)The film "Paul Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison" [more about this film is given in Preface part (G)] adds nothing to the obvious fact of intelligence circle involvement in cover-up, if it occurred. The idea of infiltration was posited long before the film did so. The film suggests the character “Maxwell”, in the song “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” is a clue to an Mi5 agent (named exactly Maxwell, to boot!), who, according to the film helps out (as if alone, to boot!) and then is afraid of having anyone expose the idea and assistance the Beatles received from him. See Preface part (G), abovem for more on this film and Iamaphoney's "The Winged Beatle".6)       Some think, of course, Sir Paul is still Paul, except for age or personality change. To them, another man's doing mimicry study of another man (Paul), or his having non-routine plastic surgery never happened, nor could. For more on the objections they raise as if they are absolutes, see Part 2, below.... All readers must note that these items for, or against, or elaborating on literalist PID, with few exceptions, are simply, at this point, not absolute in argument. The only absolute besides forensics we seem to have, is that any cover-up involving personal death and passport documents would have to involve policing and intelligence circles to some degree, but that's not a proof of PID, just an absolute requirement in the modern world of passports and official identity papers for personal and police use, internally at least.


At present, the only argument which might settle the literalist PID case for or against, is photography, if appropriate material is available for doing tests on, and if those tests are properly done. As was remarked in Preface part (E), above:

Voice prints of voice harmonics have been analyzed. They all conclude there are different men as Paul before and after 1966 on the records, but there are problems in knowing at this time whether controls were done in the formal study, to eliminate voice morphing as the cause, and the other studies are informal, unconfirmed, though they may in fact be well done. (See Part 2).
Sir Paul’s DNA has been given, in an absolute chain of custody format, for court. It was found not to match a claimed member of Paul's family. However, comparison to the definite living relatives in Paul’s original family was not done. The comparison was with a third party claimant, a woman claiming to be the original Paul’s daughter (i.e., her birth was before the putative switch). (See part 2.)
Fingerprints are unavailable publicly.

So we are left for the moment with photos, which need to be properly understood, of face, height, etc.

Photos of face, height, etc. are compared often. Some are done poorly, some done well, some done absolutely, if properly understood. The study which provided formal forensic arguments by professional forensic analysts, finding that Paul was replaced, did not explain the face/head differences as well as it might have: the article was written for the general public and makes much sense, but it was condensed for the article and thus is not as easy for the general public initially as might be hoped. (See Part 3 for very good comparisons and the formal ones.)
Ear cartilage and palatal space (usually misunderstood as a case of tooth alignment alone) are available. They are understandable, with a bit of attention and care. (See Preface part (H) and Part 3.) THESE arguments, however ARE absolute and under certain conditions (i.e., where differences are strong enough), they are as definite as fingerprints for identification. For example, ear cartilage shapes with no significant damage to them (broken ears, repaired ears), do not change over time; ears grow in the soft tissue and overall but cartilage shapes do not flop around. Even when there is surgery to the ear, certain things cannot be changed subtly enough to be radically shifted from front to back, yet maintain natural cartilage ripple shapes.Moreover, the arguments are relatively quickly demonstrated, though the whole argument in each case still takes effort to understand.The discussion of optics laws and ear cartilage can be found inside this "Preface" section (Part H, below).The fullest version of the palatal space discussion is not yet uploaded to this blog, though -- to my regret, because of computer problems at my end. Nevertheless, an overview is in Part G and an image of the palate problem is in Part 3. Most persons would superficially think it is about teeth in their own right. It is not. In my defense, the choice to delay covering the palate problem instead of the ear information, which follows, below, is that a full discussion of the palate is available where the forensic work was published, but the ear problem is not well explained (not fully discussed) there.

Agreed, these are isolated proofs, the ear cartilage and palatal space, but when properly understood -- yes, each takes explaining, unlike obvious differences in some fingerprints, they are forensically absolute. Sure, if a person is different, one should see the difference elsewhere, right? Well, besides twins, when doubles are used often people do not see the difference for psychological reasons. The doubles are close enough, sometimes, for deception to work. Yes, it can happen.
90% of people being deceived? Yes, in fact: people make excuses for some things and do not know enough to study carefully or if they do, wish away differences as mere snapshot difference or age difference. Sometimes a set of persons is not even that close, and people do not process the deception.
But, of course, if one key thing, such as ear cartilage or palatal space considerations vs. regular dentistry cosmetics can be shown to be different, each such thing, as with voice and fingerprint and DNA and height ... will suffice in isolation or in combination to prove that a person is a different person than another ... EVEN IF THE VIEWER DOES NOT NOTICE OTHER DIFFERENCES, due to prejudice of impression. Thus, if someone doubles for another, something must be able to fool most persons. Those who DO NOT see deception need to prove their case, AS MUCH AS those who DO see deception need to prove their case.


Items on a surface (little circles), moving back in view (foreshortening in perspective) maintain their positions on either side of the half-way point. (Note: this is the corrected image; above, it was shown with incorrect labelling of what types of perspective the drawings were in. 3-point perspective would angle the back edges to come inward a bit. Midline remains at centre using an X. It is the extent of the X which changes in each type of perspective, as you can see.

Fig. 5.
The ear shown at top, called "upper" here, mimics the shape of the cartilaginous features of the left-hand image below; the right-hand image of the ear below is mimicked above by the lower image. Note that the black line toward the back of each ear remains on the same side of the middle of each ear (as if a plumb line divided each ear's front from its back). The black line in the upper image of the ear stays forward of the mid-ear; the black line in the lower image of the ear stays to the rear of the mid-ear. (Sorry that the dotted line s showing mid-point plumb line, in the mid-foreshortened ears, differ a bit; it was unintentional. The point is that the BLACK line would be fore or aft of the mid plumb line consistently, having started out fore or aft.)WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? THE OUTER EAR SHAPE DIFFERS. To some this gives THE IMPRESSION OF FORESHORTENING AS THE CAUSE OF THE CARTILAGE INSIDE THE EAR (represented in back black line above and black back line in overlay below) DIFFERING FROM FRONT TO BACK.It CANNOT BE FROM FORESHORTENING.And lighting cannot account for the inner ear cartilage change itself, either, as we will see ...

Fig. 6 b).  The BLACK ridge line in the left photo has radically moved to the left side and radically straightened, in the right. The OUTER shape on the right has changed radically. If the OUTER shape is due to quite a bit of foreshortening, would the back ridge have changed? No. The back ridge is behind the mid-line AND there is no mid-ridge far forward and narrower. We are left with lighting considerations, but these too do not add up to the same ear: a flash from mid-front for left photo would leave more shadow and clearly delineate a fall-away further back in the cartilage, which the more general and dimmer lighting on the right clearly shows. The arguments are mutually reinforcing by mutual exclusion of options to explain the difference. These alone prove Paul is not Sir Paul.

For more explication of the same .....
Is the right view significantly foreshortened, to show a flatter outside edge and straighter back (black) ridge line? No. But if foreshortening were the main reason for the outside edge difference and flattened feature, the upper feature would be narrower. It also would remain in front of the midline of the ear.If lighting were the main reason for the cartilage differences, the ear would have to be radically foreshortened and different (as we just saw), AND the lighting would have to be flat on the ear on the left: for a right-front flash bulb would EMPHASIZE the falling away of a cartilage ridge at the back, not de-emphasize it.
Fake photos, wrong man?Some persons have recently claimed to this author in private correspondence that all this is "sci fi" science or "willful" analysis, or even that the photos were doctored. There is no evidence that the photos were doctored, and doctoring of lighting on complex structures is easily detectable in simple cases such as this. Were the photos both of the people Paul and Sir Paul in the timeline? The photos are cropped, but were provided to an international publication (WIRED Italia) by forensic scientists ... all of whom had a stake in being accurate, if the story had not been quashed, demeaned and otherwise ignored outside of Italy and even, by persons with assumptive attitudes within Italy.

By "optical illusion" do we mean foreshortening? If so, this is contradicted by the evidence: foreshortening narrows all relationships on a plane, while maintaining positions on that plane: anything forward of the mid-point will remain so.
By "optical illusion" do we mean lighting: a right-front flash (lefthand photo) would show a fall-away ridge at back quite clearly. The general lighting (more shaded, toned, and shadowed) in the righthand photo shows more subtlety overall in the ear ridges, but also clearly shows a high area running flatter, through the area where there was a ridge falling away strongly in the lefthand photo. And the one on the right shows the MAIN fall-away is way further back, even given foreshortening rules. So no, it's not lighting. Thus ...The flash in the left photo comes from the person's right-front.
Any ridges toward the back of the ear should be clearly defined. Instead, there is but one back ridge, more frontal than ANY high part on the right, EVEN CONSIDERING FORESHORTENING if that were in play.
In the photo on the right, there is subtler lighting. A ridge (a higher area) close to the position of the highlit area of the left photo's ridge, does exist in the righthand photo, with a radically different outer ear shape and NOT enough foreshortening to create the outer shape difference. The high part of the ridge in the righthand photo shows in shadowed, subtle greys. The begnning of the triangular dip (fossa) on the right at the top is further toward the back. The back ridge is also far towards the back.
The whole top area is wider, flatter, has A RIDGE EDGE CLEARLY SPANNING FURTHER BACK, which should be visible in the left photo as well. Instead, there is no such ridge and both photos are at roughly the same foreshortening angle. This means that the outer ear shape, too, which changes, is not due to foreshortening of any noticeable amount. THE CURVE DOWN TOWARD THE BACK EDGE begins in the righthand photo's ear approximately where a ridge-feature shows in the lefthand photo's ear, but it's not ridge-like, it's gradual, and lighting would show more fall-away and a back angle further to the back EVEN WITH A FLASH on the left.
Ears have squiggly features always, and we are not usually used to analyzing how shapes rise and fall, how they transform in foreshortening, and so on. Artists and (sometimes) medical personnel are used to these differences enough to comment. Being an artist myself, and seeing the forensic medical personnel who were interviewed for WIRED Italia June 2009, where these photos come from, I can concur that the ridges are of different widths, but some heights overlap.

For example, if one did look at a feature on an ear, such as the upper leg of the antihelix in the real (not false) ears, and found that, without intense optical perspective foreshortening, it is quite different after 1966, this would be forensic proof the persons were different.
Or let us complicate that, and say there were massive foreshortening: the feature was wider in the foreshortened image, not narrower, as a feature compared to the 1966 leg of the antihelix? Well, foreshortening narrows, it does not widen, so again the ears are different persons' ears.
How about if, as well, the feature were situated further back from the front than 1966 -- is this a foreshortening problem? Foreshortening maintains items on either side of the mid-line of the plane (surface, as if flat) which they are on. So again, foreshortening would not account for it.
Would lighting? Only if the lighting created a strong, specific area of shadow trick, i.e., a cast shadow right in that area to look like a feature was there. But other shapes and shadows could help show if this was the case. In Preface, Part H we will discuss the real ears.
The photos are from an extensive forensic study done by 2 Italian forensic scientists, who decided to test the case. Their study was summarized in WIRED Italia, July 15, 2009. (The link provided has the article and a machine translation. The intro on the page misidentifies the date as August, in the post's introduction, when in fact it was July and even says so later, in the translation. Note that there is another page on the Web, which has the article on it, but goes on to blame a specific group -- Meyer Lansky type Zionists -- for the death of Paul, assuming he was murdered and the replacement idea some kind of blackmail potential on the Beatles. I mention that because some persons will come across that page and could perhaps not separate the article's work from the post's comments. The WIRED article itself does not point to anyone as being responsible. And the link I provided also does not name a group responsible.)

AGAIN, FEATURES ON A PLANE NARROW when the plane turns away and turning away would show up more in other features of the ear, too. Only if the height of the ridge were greater than the width at the same distance away and same width of view (crop), would show a widening (viewing a mountain higher than its base is wide -- 1st seen from top and then from side). Also, positions of features front to back on the object doesn't change; all parts proportionally shift. Mid-line stays mid object. Heights begin to overtake that mid-line if the plane is not flat, but again, only to the extent maximally that their own straight-on view width is. What can happen is that a small rise can overlap a previously seen edge, but if it is not higher than the total width of the feature, it will not obscure the total feature. As its straight-on view (height, in dotted orange) overtakes the total NEW PERCEIVED width, then indeed, it obscures the back edge of the feature. Lens distortion of width is minor on objects small or further away relative to the camera. Focus "fuzz" width can change. But the basic proportions work as shown above.
Always, if a set of photographs shows an object or objects with roughly the same foreshortening amount, and if a feature on the thing is wider and more to the back in one photo, it is a different object. Period. Ask Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Leonardo. Optics have been understood for basic perspective shifts since the 1400s. Focal depth has been understood for somewhat less time, though it may have been used for effect about that long (here and here). Lighting can affect how wide something looks, but if ridges or flatness confirm the width, direction toward the back, and other anomalies, the feature is different.
Roundness straightens during foreshortening, but always from wider to narrower, not vice versa. If there is a high ridge coming into view, from top view (straight onto the other direction of the plane, such as from in front of an ear), the high ridge will eventually show in its own true height, from the new side view of the original plane (so the straight view is now of the ridge, not the ear, in our example). One could think of looking at a bay window on a house: from the front, maybe 15 or more feet away away, the bay window looks roughly flat, except for shaded edges, whereas from the side, the bay window takes on its own width in "front view" of the side of the window jutting out. For a small object such as an ear, a foot or more away will do to effectively flatten the perspective on the ridges from the front, and side view would have to be rather extreme to see the "front view" of the ridges (side view of ear). Ridges on an ear are not as high as the ear is wide, just as with a bay window extending from a house. Thus the house has to turn extensively or the view come up very close, to see the bay window as wider than the front of the house itself.

Also, where that bay window JOINS the house, if it has a little roof, this will NARROW at top when the view of the house goes toward a side view, because it is almost in the same plane as the front of the house, unlike the full jutting bay window, which widens to its own side view becoming the new "front view". The top of the little roof of the bay window is like the top of an ear's middle ridge: the ridge meets the top of the ear edge. So lighting on the ridge will not widen the view of the ridge there, as the ear turns. Instead, it should always narrow WITH the top edge of the ear.
[For source of basic comparison, and context of this and other forensic work, also see Part 2, points 2. a) and 3.]Again, both views are relatively straight-on (not exactly, for the righthand photo, it's true! -- but it's close.) The diagrams take into account the different lighting. The bottom diagram on the photo counts not only all highlights on the right, but also makes allowance for cast shadows, which could have tricked some people into thinking there is more extension forward by the leg of the antihelix on the right, than there is. It would be irrelevant to the back of the leg of the antihelix (the upper black line), but the cast shadow is partly included, in the black line around the triangular fossa (the trough near the upper ear). The cast shadow is included in order to show that even if the right photo's triangular fossa were the same as on the left, the main issue about the back of the leg of the antihelix is unaffected by irrelevant objections for the front leg and shadows in the fossa.

Don't assume the flatter aspect to the outside of the ear on the right means that it comes from foreshortening worth mentioning.

1. The amount of foreshortening required to flatten the back ridge of the antihelix from curved to straight would be extremely noticeable, with other elements changing radically. This is not seen. Thus the flattening of the outer and inner ear shapes on the right, are thus mostly from the real shapes.
2. But even if that weren't so, if we use the right figure's head as if it were actually angled away enough to matter, and  then we corrected the real right photo's ear to a more straight-on view, the top distance, from tragus flap in the front, to the back of the top leg of the antihelix, would be of even greater distance. Yet the left photo is taken from a slightly more head-on view and has less of a distance from the tragus in front to the back of the top leg of the antihelix. This is photographically impossible on the same object.

For both independent reasons, therefore, it cannot be from mere optical foreshortening that the right-hand figure's ear is different in the major ways the two ears are different. This also means that the basic ear shape of the right (the outer edge) is little changed from perspective shifts, though there is a tiny perspective difference.

3. Lighting on the right shows the ridge on the upper leg of the antihelix to flatten out across the upper edge of the ear. The ridge is well defined by mid-grey shadow, ending in no ridge worth mentioning, well before the upper edge of the ear. This is a difference between the left photo's ear and the right photo's ear, but also indicates that the wider top angle, the left-hand black line, which is the direction the antihelix tends toward, is not due to a ridge foreshortening. If the right photo's ear were incredibly foreshortened, it would still not become wider top area because of a direct view of the antihelix's elevation near the upper ear: it is not elevated there. There is some elevation in the same places for both ears, in other words, some height overlaps, but they have different total widths for the ridges and edges for the falling away of the ridges.


Would the difference be on the same men but the second had antihelix ear surgery? No. This change, in this way with plastic surgery, creates other distortions. (Think, to be brutal, how a hatchet job and boxer's cauliflower ear indeed change general shapes but leave other things about the ear obviously different -- or think of major ear loss, requiring a whole new antihelix and ear to be reconstructed. When that much is changed, the result looks rather unnatural. In cases of severe deformityeither the antihelix partly exists and is used to build on, so remains about the same in angle and width, or there is no antihelix for the surgeon to use. In the latter case, a whole new ear is constructed, looks less natural and most people don't need to have that done.

Not antihelix changes from near front to near rear. Degeneration wastes away the shapes but does not create front-tending become back-tending complete antihelix legs.

SO ...
The fellow on the right is not the same man, absolutely. The only question could be: is this a photo of the putative Paul after 1966? Given the credentials of the scientists interviewed for the study, and the seriousness of WIRED magazine's reputation, the cropped images are more than reasonably likely just as honest reproductions as in the rest of the article these ear images came from. It can reasonably be stated therefore that Sir Paul's ear is on the right, Paul's on the left as they claim, and from the arguments above, elaborating on the points the scientists made, THESE ARE DIFFERENT MEN AND YES, PAUL WAS REPLACED, whether the reader can already see the difference in general (some can) or if they cannot. (The scientists themselves said the same: they didn't at first feel or see the difference in the men, their extensive measurements SHOWED them that there was a difference.) Others can see the difference -- how we have created a "third Paul" in our minds, a kind of composite impression, neither purely one person or the another.

Fig 7.1 (top) From here.  Figs 7.2 & 7.3 (bottom two images) Found cached through Google search from this page, cached here. ---- These are outer ear diagrams (outside of ear diagrams), of ear anatomy parts of ears.


Other ear photos, with even more compiled at this other Webpage, show Sir Paul in false ears, are from the regular record of videos and photos of Sir Paul from after 1966. Persons claiming prejudicially that these are doctored (or in modern terminology "Photoshopped") images, have not noticed the naturalness of the images and the bizarreness of the concept for average researchers to have thought of, nor studied the sources. The only explanation for wearing false ears (other than hiding his own ear shape and covering suspicious plastic surgery scars), was that he had regular, if vain, plastic surgery. Given that he has different ears (already shown above), the explanation cannot be pure vanity.Fig. 8.Figs 9, 10.  Routine plastic surgery scars required false ears? Or was the amount of surgery he was having due to changes to help with looking a bit more like Paul? Not knowable from these photos alone. But it could be part of a literal PID situation.[The flap falsies (directly above) and the tubular-attachment-to-head falsies (previous image): from here.]

Fig. 11 a).  These images compiled here. Note naturalness of photos, each different. Bottom has huge antihelix -- but it's forward, not backward like the true ear, at least (looks like a plastic surface); note here also the lobe's unnatural resting shape on head. Top image from a movie (flap is also seen in other images below in this article compiled at same place). Different falsies (false ears).Figs 11 b) & c).  One example of many problems.Routine plastic surgery scars required false ears on the right (note bulbous attachment to head)? Or was the amount of surgery he was having due to changes to help with looking a bit more like Paul? Not knowable from these photos alone. But it could be part of a literal PID situation.
If the left and right images were BOTH natural:
 OPTICAL ILLUSION for the left image's earlobe? YES. PAUL PRE-1966 HAD SOME LOBES, but small enough to look almost gone in some angles, such as here at left with head angle -- such that they never look so droopy in any angle. So would he get surgery -- to get longer earlobes?-- on the right? Interesting question, but unnecessary.The attachment to the head is tubular at right.
So, the one on the right is a false ear:
We see other false ears (with clear cheek flaps this time), below. Did he use false ears to look good after.Was he maybe using them to look better and protect ROUTINE cosmetic surgery scars? MAYBE SO. But given the forensics discussed above, no: he was a different fellow and still is.

Figs 12, 13.  Paul McCartney full body with Mal Evans, roadie; and Sir Paul full body with Mal.For more info on this image, see point 2 section. Original source=here. There is some lens distortion in the photo at left affecting the comparison, whereas any distortion irrelevant for angle of  comp on right, because the two men are roughly hip to hip touching and in a parallel line with the camera. On the right, though, there are possibly heels on Sir Paul. Taking some lens distortion and some possible heels into account for the two photos: are the overall body heights noticeably different? Definitely not by a lot, at most only 2 to 2 1/2 inches, and possibly less than that, maybe only 1 1/2 to 2 inches -- with a bit more heft @right? Perhaps, perhaps not? There is some evidence that John and Paul's heights were slightly exaggerated in press releases and eventually on their passports. If Paul was not 5'11 but closer to 5'10 in youth, and Sir Paul were even 5'11 1/2 or so in youth, the heft difference would be noticeable. Paul was not "short" but he was rather fine boned and seems short, not middle height. Same with John, who seems also to have been closer to 5'10, in some people's assessment. Interestingly, the "Sergeant Pepper" outfits seem to support this. I can't find it right now -- sorry! -- but someone was commenting, not on literal PID or anything like that, saying they are 5'10 and tried on one of the jackets at a special event and it was slightly too short and small even on him.--- With Love to ALL the Beatles & Family & Friends --- Thank you all for the joy. --- I hope there is no blowback, as you must also hope. Whatever fears of public non-acceptance of a Fab 3 drove the coverup to become a Fab 4 again silently, I am glad you DID continue.



-- END OF PREFACE. ............................................................................INTRO:  THE RUMOURS & "CLUES" Whether Paul died or didn't ... we can discuss the "clues" ...

The purpose of this post is to expose the drawing as a likely PID-style item, a so-called "clue", for whatever reason the PID clues were done. So we need to ask first, what kinds of things are "clues" or not and do they exist at all?
Some say there are none at all. We'll get to that in a moment. But right now: Why were the clues done? On their own, there is no way to argue this conclusively. Some say John's cruel side was enough for him to plant general suggestions of Paul's having died. Others think it was some publicity stunt. Yet others think Paul died and the suggestions are real cries for exposure of what became a cover-up, to keep the Beatles together with a new bandmate and friend whom the public at the time would not accept as a "Fab Fifth", or the Beatles were blackmailed, or both. Whyever they were done, the aggregate of putative PID items are called clues, so I'll call them clues, whether they were jokes, for publicity, some other arcane purpose, or because Paul died.
Some people think the 1967 item below was an in-joke due to a moped accident Paul had about a year before. Questions have been raised (due to the idea of a later real PID as possible murder) as to whether Paul was in a fight instead, or something else, since his speed of 30 MPH and lack of injuries other than a tooth chipped and small scars seemed odd to the person. Even if none of that is questioned, the fact is, Paul DID have what's claimed as a moped accident event in the timeline and some think the 1967 item was in reference to that, as a joke -- but why, then, the tone of the following macabre items? In isolation, we cannot know either way.


1. One so-called clue mentions the idea of Paul's death overtly, in writing and predates the famous 1969 "rumour mill" events in the USA: it is from February 1967 and suggests a crash rumour existed from the previous month, disclaiming that Paul died and by implication that there was a crash at all. So there is at least ONE planted and early PID "clue" item, for whatever reason the clues were done. The available timeline for a real Paul's death leaves no possible place for it in 1967, but rather in the beginning of the final quarter of 1966. The disclaimer could be a distraction from the date but a quelling of a real rumour.
On the other hand, the early 1967 car crash idea itself is interesting: a long time after 1967, the claim was made that this "clue" was related to a car crash involving a Moroccan student and Paul's car. If Paul died, instead, and this was a cover story, it came out (in 2000) only when more modern research into the PID question began to take off in a second wave, because of the Internet. No record of such a crash exists otherwise. Yet if that crash occurred, it seems strange prima face, at least, that the disclaimer did not mention such a real crash at the time, though Paul was supposedly not involved in this putative crash. And even if the crash occurred, it could well be unrelated or a cover for a real crash. We have to prove or disprove Paul's death otherwise, of course. We also have no corroborating evidence that the Moroccan student event occurred. The story is detailed but rather fanciful, unless Sir Paul was extremely careless.
Finally, the statement in the disclaimer from Beatles Monthly interestingly mentions that the car is fine, by implication, because the car is "locked up".This hardly suggests any accident had occurred. Of course, we can also postulate, inconclusively, that the very existence of any crash as well was being denied due to the supposed drug use in the story.Whatever the case about a Moroccan student in Paul's car, this item is a definite PID-style clue, at least in the sense that it is verbal and predates the 1969 rumours; this alone exonerates the gist of the later student rumours in the USA from being merely and entirely a silliness imposed onto Beatles material.
2. Another planted clue is from 1995, long after 1969 -- and thus it could be argued, technically speaking, that it was done in response to the 1969 rumours, but it is not a mere symbol and must receive discussion. It is knowably planted due to the nature of optics (blur from camera movement is missing on that item within a film).
3. To understand the two other early clues, one must note first that one of them is usually treated as debatable as a clue. It turns out it is merely misunderstood, as well as gets reinforced by another clue which is virtually unknown. The misunderstood "clue", is from the Sergeant Pepper album gatefold (a gatefold is the inner double album cover). The clue is known as the "OPP/OPD" clue. Long debated, it is affirmed not only when one understands optical foreshortening, but also because there is another OPP/OPD clue related to the main one, which is barely known, as was mentioned above. This second, related clue shows a FULLY FRONTAL OPD image. Both are early, from mid-1967, with the unknown one being undebatably planted, therefore, for whatever reason. Because the lesser-known clue exists, it proves that the debated one was a watered-down version, also planted.

We will discuss these four clues after mentioning the history of the rumours themselves ...ABOUT THE RUMOURS
For those who don't know, there was a major brouhaha in media history, first when Des Moines, Iowa's Drake University newspaper, The Times-Delphic, published a "PID clue" article on September 17, 1969, by an undergraduate student, Tim Harper. Many people think he started it all, but he himself had heard of the rumour. He made a list of "clues". These were idiosyncratically partly chosen by the author of the article. This writer didn't just list and describe the "clues" he'd found or heard of, but also strung the "clues" together into a storyline of his own making. He did not believe the idea of real clues, even as a joke. On October 20, a college student from Eastern Michigan university "Tom" phoned WKNR-FM, a radio station in Detroit. He told DJ Russ Gibb that a rumour was circulating on campus that Paul McCartney of the Beatles had died -- or at least that items suggestive of that idea, according to the rumour, had been placed in Beatles records, often backwards and on their album covers. He made a point of listening to the song "Revolution 9" from the White Album, but backwards. Mr. Gibb had never heard of such a weird idea, tried it, was struck that the introduction sounded strongly like "Turn me on, dead man," and later had to field multiple phone calls about this idea. He said, a long time after, that he didn't believe the rumour or "clues" were planted, although it seemed odd to him that that sound came out of his record.
The interesting thing is that, years later, the student caller said that he first heard of the idea (the rumour) of "clues" from his roommate, and that he seemed to recall that the roommate heard it from a band visiting from England. Most modern sites now speak as if Tim Harper's article came out of nowhere and that it started it all. Instead, it seems likely that different campuses had the rumour for some time, but the awareness of it grew to the degree that it got into the public record in late 1969.
There is a different version of the early events: that Fred LaBour wrote an article and it got famous, but he said he based his on the Russ Gibb radio broadcast. (The later Roby Yonge WABC radio broadcast is available for free here, while both the Yonge and Gibb broadcasts are available -- for sale -- here.)
The Beatles were the most famous musicians in popular culture at the time. They also were known for odd, but usually friendly clever remarks and such. These "clues" were a stretch from that, but fit the general idea of cleverness, if they were indeed there for fans to find. Some people who heard of the idea later and took the idea of Paul's death seriously, assumed that the possible death had been in the recent period of relative seclusion which Paul had been maintaining for some months, though some putative clues noticed at the time went back to the mid-1967 Sergeant Pepper album.
After these events, the idea took off famously. DJ Roby Young in New York actually lost his job because he took the idea seriously enough to inform New York listeners about the general suggestion of Paul's having died, through these planted "clue ideas" to that effect -- though he said he didn't know what it all was for. Years after, he gave an interview (a clip from it is in The Winged Beatle film), saying he actually began to realize Paul may have been replaced, back at the engagement party for Paul and Jane Asher, at the end of 1967. It seems, from listening to his broadcast, that he was partly flummoxed as to what was going on and partly spreading his instinctual reaction to feeling strongly that Paul was not Paul, at the party in late 1967.

A collage of news stories on the "Paul-is-dead" rumor, 1969.Fig. 14.  Collage of PID articles from 1969. Image from here, cached here.

The 1969 rumours, from campuses to mainstream news, became an extremely well known weird episode -- usually called a "mystery" or "hoax" -- in Beatles history. The 1969 brouhaha and some of the putative clues remain somewhat well known to this day.
On the other hand, some people believe that there are NO PID items, called "clues", planted at all, for any reason. Others, already mentioned, think the whole thing started with Tim Harper's imagination, which is a variant on that idea of there being no clues, but emphasizes the idea that everything started in 1969. It would mean little or nothing that, in 2004, Sir Paul said that the Beatles PID clues were planted, if no definitely planted clue ideas could be found. (Sir Paul's comments also direct away from the idea that Paul actually died, though, of course.)
But those who think that ALL clues don't exist, or that it all started in 1969, do not know of the following ...

But there are four definite historic items in the PID repertoire. Of the four items, the oldest one may have been done as a joke, but cannot be dismissed as a wisecrack ABOUT the idea of PID itself, since it is the first clue of them all. It predates 1969 (as do two others), so it also cannot possibly have been planted due to the 1969 USA rumour itself, unlike the other definite item in the repertoire, which is from 1995. However, the first clue does post-date a supposedly not-serious moped accident from almost a year before, in early 1966, which some have postulated was the source of the whole PID clue-set, as a joke from John Lennon. The third and fourth -- in my list, but not in time -- are the subject of much misunderstanding and are from 1967 as well.
Technically speaking, all other "clues" than the four I'm referring to, even some which are rather obvious in symbolic terms, at least, can be and have been debated, as to whether they are plants ("clues") at all or just figments of people's imaginations. I, too, would agree with debating some of the examples people have debated, though not all. Here are the reasons people tend to debate: the sound is bad (backwards clues), the lyrics are a joke or some lyrics aren't definite enough to include as a clue (lyrics), images are part of storylines only (Beatles cartoon series), images have "any meaning you want them to" (images in general) and so on. But there's one which is in writing and early, so whatever it was done for, it's not ambiguous in content: for some reason, it makes direct reference to the idea of Paul's having literally died.

The first clue of them all is the only item which was both undeniably planted about the PID subject and pre-dates the 1969 rumours. It comes from the February 1967 "Beatles Book Monthly". This was then a UK-only fan magazine. Whether Paul died or notit mentions overtly the idea of McCartney's having died. It states Paul's death in words, explicitly gives a manner and place of death (in a car crash in London on the M1 motorway), mentions a rumour it seeks to dispel and gives a date of death (January 7, 1967). It also says Paul is fine. Of course, this item, clue, putative disclaimer piece could have been printed to plant the idea or as containment of a real local rumour, back in the winter of 1967.
Fig. 15.  Small disclaimer regarding the idea of Paul's having died. Published for whatever reason -- as a real disclaimer of a rumour or not -- in February 1967 edition of Beatles Book Monthly fan magazine (then UK-only). [Image cached here, from this blog page]

(About the claimed date of death in the disclaimer piece: 1. If this is a deflection from the idea of a previous moped accident, from almost a year before, then we may note instead the fact someone bothered with specifically naming a date and weather pattern for the so-called sweeping rumour. Note also that the exact word, "swept" adds a finality to the tone, a brush-off quality as well as a size -- the largeness -- of the putative rumour. The language tone doesn't tend to fit a planting of a disclaimer joke about a previous accident which was long-over, but in isolation, it could be argued to be based jokingly on the moped accident or for some other publicity joke anyway.
2. There is a problem with the date chosen in this piece also from a literal PID position. If Paul died, all other indications from historical photos and events suggest that instead the date was, instead, on or around September 11, 1966. From a specific number-style date clue, supposedly on the drumskin pictured on the front side of the Sergeant Pepper album cover, some thought the supposed death to be as late as November 9, 1966. This was due to different dating methods between British style and US-style, for all-number dates. Since the Beatles Book claimed death date given is January 7, 1967, in a snowstorm, and if Paul died before that, and there was a real rumour, then the Beatles Book PID clue would have been created both to contain the rumour ... and deflect from the date.)
There is another factor: there WAS a crash on that date, involving a man who was heavily integrated into the "alternative" scene -- possibly much more sinister and wacky scene -- with putatively the 2nd Paul (i.e., Sir Paul). His crash may well have been to deflect from the putatively real death of Paul, or someone could have wanted the replacement dead, or it was just a co-incidence, or it never happened.
Nonetheless, without considering other information to support whether Paul died, we can only say that at the very least, it is an undebatable PID item, or "clue" in content, not that Paul in fact died.
As well, again, this Beatles Book item pre-dates ALL famous clue-seeking interest in the USA, which started in late 1969, so the idea that all clues are from Tim Harper's head, or all PID rumour must originate from harebrained students in 1969 is incorrect.
Of course there's debate as to what it all means, but we have seen from the Beatles Book 1967 item, however, that the clues, in principle, and that one in particular, are quite real, whatever their purpose.

After the student rumours and article in late 1969, the idea of weird "clues" -- and fears that McCartney actually died -- took off for a year (with Life magazine, Time and Rolling Stone bothering to denounce it, though Life showed photos of the supposedly 2nd Paul only, using images only back to 1967). The PID conundrum remains a famous incident in Beatles history, with some "clues" continuing after the Beatles broke up, for example in the "Free as a Bird" music video. Though there are two other provable clues from 1967, the macabre quality of the music video clue, in context of Lennon's 1971 drawing, makes it the 2nd clue we'll mention in this article.

That video image, which is of a rather deathly head, resembling Paul, comes from years after the first clue we covered in Beatles Book and is a bit more well known. The video image can be argued as having been created due to the later rumours, in isolation of other facts, because it is from 1995, putting it after the 1969 USA rumours. Nevertheless, it is there.
More people seem to know of this video image than of the original clue in Beatles Book. But many don't realize why this video image has to be a planted image. For whatever reason it was planted, it is optically forensically impossible that it was a natural reflection or object caught on camera. Why?
The deathly head appears in the window reflection on a stationary (parked) Police van. It could be a leafy reflection or a person in the Police van seen through the window -- if the following were not true. What proves it is a planted clue physically, is that this image in or on the window is blurless during an otherwise appropriately blurry camera pan. Reflections are naturally unblurry if objects are moving but camera is not; objects are blurry if they or camera or both are moving. In either case, camera movement blurs all items, so it is undeniably, optically forensically knowable as planted.
What is not knowable about it is the motivation to put it into the video, if we look at this item alone. It could be said to be due to the 1969 rumours, or for some other reason, say, as continuation of a putative joke, or done because Paul died. It's worth noting that for whatever reason, it appears before a scene of a 1960s car crash scene involving an Aston Martin, Paul's make of car, which makes this clue and the scene after a PID-style set of "clues", for whatever reason they were done. But the death image is a definite plant, physically speaking: it cannot be natural because of optics.)

Fig. 16.  This image is from a 1960s police van, just before a 1960s car crash scene, in the 1995 video "Free as a Bird", where most scenes are about Beatles history. The camera is panning, the van is parked, that is, it's still, yet panning would blur still objects in or on the van and leafy reflections. The impression that this is a natural reflection of leaves or a head in the van is optically forensically impossible. For whatever reason, this image has to have been inserted into the scene. -- Note the appropriate camera-movement blur on the parked van (the word "Police" on the upper right is the most obvious blur in this cropped image). -- The head resembles Paul. As to context: Just after this, the scene is of an a car crash, already having occurred. John Lennon, mid-1960s in looks, is in the crowd looking on (added by using computer graphics). The car crash in the scene involves an Aston Martin, Paul's make (but not colour) of car in the mid-'60s.
However, the Beatles Book piece, remember, is both an unambiguous PID item, or "clue", for whatever reason it was printed, and it is very early.
Ironically, this means the FIRST PID CLUE is, technically speaking, the best one for a literal PID claim based purely on clues, though it still poses problems for a literal PID claim. For example, Was it a hasty  and necessarily literal disclaimer, attempting to dispel the date alone? It seems reasonable that if Paul died, the first mention would be less playful, less clever -- might be more desperate than other clues. With the size kept small, to minimize the idea, the Beatle Book disclaimer would also possibly be included by people trying to be literal enough to "take care of the rumour". Later clues seem to have developed into being more "clever", even almost misleadingly obscure, or are mostly emotional expressions of grief rather than bearers of literal information. Interestingly, all this would be expected, if a literal PID situation occurred.

Not quite as old as the Beatles Book disclaimer piece from very early 1967, the following two clues date to mid-1967. Ever since 1969, there has been some debate as to whether the interior of the 1967 Sergeant Pepper album cover (called the "gate-fold" of the album), contained a statement of "OPD". OPD is the short form of the British phrase "Officially Pronounced Dead", used on police reports; it's comparable in some ways to "DOA" in the USA, for "Dead on Arrival".
The item which was in question on the gate-fold is some bright lettering on a patch on Sir Paul's upper arm. The patch curves around the arm, but not at some extreme foreshortened perspective on the arm itself, too (the arm is not lifted). Foreshortening therefore comes only from the cylindrical shape of the arm. It foreshortens the last letter pretty well straightforwardly, though at a slight angle to the line of sight. The fairly straightforward viewing angle makes a difference in what happens to the letters and whether the letters, foreshortened, form certain shapes or not -- naturally, that is.
The patch is a police patch for the Ontario Provincial Police, or "OPP", and would normally say OPP on it, as well as contain the crest for the province (which it does). Before people knew about the existence of such a badge patch from Ontario, Canada, clue-seekers noted that the last letter on this album's patch seemed to be a "D", not a natural "P" curving around the arm. The reason to say this is that it seems to some that the stem and the ball of the putative "P" touch, and wrapping a P around a cylinder, even with a slight -- very slight -- tilt to that cylindrical upper arm, would not, they think, convert a P into a D shape even with the compression optically. The idea that the "D" was formed by the compression of the period (dot) sewn after the letter also doesn't work. In close-up, there is a dot elsewhere, so it is not part of the letter, making a P into a D. All this made people suspect that the letters were "OPD" -- on a nondescript patch. When it was discovered that OPP as letters and the patch's shape and crest make it a valid patch in its own right, many persons dropped the idea the "D" -- though the D could still be there, as a doctoring of the final "P"  on an OPP patch. Many who read of the questions around the patch as "clue" consider the "D" debunked by the fact that an OPP patch was used. This begs the question of photo doctoring for the D, using an OPP patch.
Not only to solve the question around this problem patch, but also in its own right a striking and planted clue, comes the final planted clue of four. It is the item in this story of definite PID "clue" items, which the most readers won't know of.
I do not know on what object the item actually is, i.e., where the clue was printed. It could be from an alternate Sergeant Pepper album cover or promotional item; it certainly is part of a photograph which shows the same basic idea as the ultimate gate-fold of the Sergeant Pepper album. The Beatles are there (as in the regular gate-fold), albeit in slightly different suits, with slightly different poses and faces, but basically in the same manner as they are in the regular gate-fold. And this other image also contains the OPP patch on Sir Paul as we saw before, and this patch one is different.
The clue is a FULL FRONTAL OPD PATCH. (See below, for images) Judging from the quality of the filmic image which shows it, the different Sergeant Pepper image was shown in an early (1969-1970?) film about PID clues. The film clip itself is unsourced; it is in a short compilation by a major PID-related filmmaker of the 2000s. The clue appears at about 11-13 seconds into "Rotten Apple 47 2", a video within Iamaphoney's "Rotten Apple" series, which came out 2006-mid 2010. This clue plays a quiet but important role -- often unnoticed -- within the "RA" series. After that, he put out "The Winged Beatle" film and some music, but never drew attention to this clue again. He has done that with other things: leaving the best work sometimes for those who don't watch passively and partially. He doesn't make it easy for research (or, shall we say, "clue seeking", but of the serious kind). Nevertheless, this OPD video, posted to Youtube on Aug. 20, 2007, is important simply in dispelling the debate about not the gate-fold's original patch source (which is an OPP patch), but the intended letters, the "clue" on them. It also shows Sir Paul with a slightly different general facial look than we ultimately get used to his having on the usual gate-fold of the album.

Figs 17 & 18
Figs 19, 20, 21.
Comments on Figs 17-21:Fig. 17:  Full frontal OPD Sergeant Pepper patch. --- Fig. 18:  Sir Paul's different face and different picture of 4 Beatles fading in while panning camera. Common gate-fold image of the 4 Beatles fading out. The OPD and face are from an early but unsourced PID film. (Date of original film guessed only, because of film image quality. Image in that film is also unsourced. Current usage of the clip is within "Rotten Apple 47 2" video, Youtube, uploaded Aug. 20, 2007 by filmmaker "Iamaphoney" (name plays on the idea that Sir Paul is a Phoney Paul).  Source of full frontal image of OPD and Beatles must be from another Beatles Sergeant Pepper gate-fold, less well known, or a promo item.
Fig. 19:  Close-up of full-frontal OPD image. --- Fig. 20:  Image of common gate-fold image. --- Fig. 21: an original, period OPP patch are from attempted debunker site here, images cached here and here, respectively. Note also the more original shape (less rounded of jaw and head than in the seemingly doctored other inner album picture -- gate-fold -- for Sergeant Pepper. It also might well be less surgically altered to have rounder real cheeks in front) than Sir Paul might later have been. The image of the face is faded in, and Iamaphoney does this a lot, to hide definites among maybes. He plays games with viewers at times, but provides some solid pieces of information.
ConclusionFor whatever purpose it was done, there is a planted full-frontal OPD image for Sergeant Pepper, which was well known enough in the early period after 1969 -- judging by film quality of the clip which Iamaphoney presents -- to be presented as proof of "clues", in a PID-theme film. Somehow, only the other album image (4th figure from top) is now often seen.

OPD is not the original patch name, but the rest remains OPP patch content. Thus, for whatever reason, there was a planted "clue" of OPD in at least the full frontal image with the patch. Moreover, though, if we backtrack to the famous, usual gate-fold and the fact that a D, when compressed, does not look the same as a P compressed, in fairly simple cylindrical warping and fairly straight line of sight, we can support through these facts AND through the fourth clue, that the third clue, long debated or (begging the question of doctoring, dismissed) contains a D in fact! Thus the main gate-fold image was a sanitized, watered down version of the "OPD" idea OF THE FOURTH CLUE. Both were made out of doctoring the image on the gate-fold. The photograph in the fourth clue, also, has a more realistic feel to the final image than the extremely heightened, almost airbrush quality -- not literal, though -- on the usual gatefold's colours and shadows all over. It is likely that the fourth clue mentioned here was the first of the two gatefolds (or was an early promotional item), and was sanitized, for whatever reason: either to obscure a joke a bit, or to pull back from being too obvious about the semi-private mourning about the real death of Paul. Aside: the image in the fourth clue looks perhaps more like it was a doctored patch, through changed stitching, instead of pure photo doctoring, though it, too, could have gained its D from photo doctoring.

For whatever reason they were done, then, we are up to four provably created "clues", three of them from 1967, one from 1995.

Only 3 chairs Three Beatles crossing road, then 4 passing in front of camera

George goes to the druggist Dr Robert, as in, from the spring 1966 song. This places the next scene likely fairly closely thereafter. This leads into the planted (no blur but camera pan) image of a death head in the window of the van. Then we are led to a 1960s car crash scene with John looking on in the crowd, ca. late 1966 forward. A strong emphasis is put on police (a line of them in a strong foreground position. After: a kite (spirit image?) floats up by a tower. (Does anyone know what tower this is?). Then we see "piggies" (pigs are cops, in street lingo), represented by an adult and children in pig masks. If PID was in fact real, it would have required police / intelligence service help; but that help is sinister, too, as a coverup. So the police emphasis, here, which is a tad sinister, might be to do with that. Note: often, the "A Day In The Life" song from 1967 is assumed to be purely about Guinness fortune heir, Mr. Tara Browne's death, which Lennon asserted it was; but if Paul had died, the overlap of the deaths in his mind might well account for the song. Lennon is included in the crowd scene here, as metaphoric witness after some death. I believe the car in the picture is an Aston Martin, which is the make (not colour) of Paul's car in 1966.

Supposedly a mere leafy reflection on the back window of a police van. This reflection has no blur, while the camera pans on the still object (the police van). Leafy reflections would remain still (or ripple along glass and not blur) if the camera were still and the van were moving; but once the camera is panning as well, anything still (such as a reflection angle) will blur. (Aside: moving objects will have combined or lesser blur, depending on rate of pan and rate of speed of movement of object past the camera.) This image has to be inserted, and since it is very like a dead head, rather like Paul, it not only is a planted image, but a PID clue on its own, aside from the car crash context which is shown next, in front of this police van. Also note the deformed right eye (our left), and decapitated look, possibly damaged top of head, torn-looking upper lip. It was inserted and so must, reasonably speaking, have been arranged (created) first. Yet, how much of the damaged appearance is happenstance from trying to make it look like a mere leafy reflection, is unknowable, unless John Lennon's drawing and the constant walrus references in PID clues are anything to go by.

(They end the scene with one more photo of crash, above, though it is not necessary for the story; but for accuracy, I have included it.)

The camera leaves the kite, returns from wherever the tower was, zooms in on poorer working class Liverpool area (or similar), where Paul, George, Ringo frequented as kids and lived, then shows this scene along that street, before completely changing the theme.

Eleanor Rigby gravestone and Martha, dog of James Paul -- and Sir Paul (if he is a new bandmate) -- in graveyard pans (bleeds scene) into Sir Paul dancing on wall with woman not noticing, as if he is a spirit. James Paul (i.e., Paul before late 1966 wrote the song; the dog is adult, however, and was a mere pup or not born yet when the song was written). Are these double-entendre "clues"?

Car runs over Sir Paul's spot in the already-suspected PID "clue" of the putative new bandmate "Paul as dead man" on the  Abbey Road album cover. In fact, in this video, cars recreate the cover scene to be in the video the same way except for the one "driving over" Paul, if he were still walking there. This clearly symbolically adds to the PID "clue" repertoire; but was that repertoire a hoax or not?


Either way, having dispelled the idea that PID clues never exist for real, whatever their purpose, and that they never definitely reference Paul and started in 1969 ...

FOR WHATEVER REASON PAUL IS DEAD CLUES APPEAR in Beatles history, IS THIS DRAWING ONE OF THEM, from John Lennon's own hand, no less?=


END OF INTRO.............................................................................THE MAIN ARTICLE -- IN FOUR PARTS:PART 1

1. So: First, what do we see in the drawing which makes it likely a PID-style clue? Whether Paul died or didn't ...FOR WHATEVER REASON PAUL IS DEAD-STYLE CLUES APPEAR in Beatles history, IS THIS DRAWING ONE OF THEM, from John Lennon's own hand, no less?  It is a fairly unknown drawing, in a private collection, though the album it's done on and its signatures (John first, the other 3 Beatles later), have been mentioned for years. Done on December 7, 1971, it is a John Lennon drawing on a very atypical theme for the artist: a violently, doubly split-headed, dead young man, with dislocated or damaged eyes, wearing disheveled shoes, digging his own grave against a setting sun.
Note that this is a large drawing. It is not a tiny scribble, though it was obviously done in some haste; it was thought-through enough to be a complete idea, impressive in size and in has some anatomical seriousness regarding at least the head wounds it shows, for whatever reason.


Whoever is dead here, and given the atypicality of such grisliness in drawings by John Lennon, the simple fact that it is a grisly death image should have been noticed, no matter of whom it is. This just goes to show that people really do not process the isolated basics of what's in front of them sometimes. So the following will go through the drawing literally, as well as make PID-"clue" informed interpretations.

This is a large drawing. It is not a tiny scribble, though it was done in some haste, obviously; it was thought-through enough to be a complete idea and impressive in size and in anatomical seriousness of the head, at least. As stated in the introduction, it takes up the whole blank back of a rare version of an already rare Beatles' 'Yesterday and Today" (or "Butcher cover") album. Yesterday and Today originally had the "Butcher" cover on the front, which were later changed to a different picture because they were grisly. John drew the drawing on the back and signed it on the front. He then gave it to a 21-year-old collector named Dave Morrell, in December 1971 (one day short of 10 calendar years to John's own death, bizarrely, for it was done on the 7th of December and John died on the 8th of December, 1980). Morrell was a fan whom John met through a DJ in New York. Ultimately, he got the album signed by the other three Beatles and sold it to a man named Steve Paneka, a major collector, who considers it one of his centrepiece items. (Even more about the album's history is covered in Part 3 of this article, below.)

Was there any general reason for John to draw death? We have dead babies (meat slabs with baby doll heads) on the avant garde front of the cover of the album. This drawing, however, translates that idea of generalized decapitation at the neck and bludgeoned meat as bodies, into a young man and full shovel, dog, grave, setting sun. This is not a natural or quick transition for an artist to make. It also has very clearly imaged wound directions (such that John must have been thinking quite specifically, for whatever reason, or had worked out such an idea beforehand for some reason). There is a specifically two-way head wound: left-to-right and top. The broken eye sockets or eyes are also well done (though simple), and the bloody matter is pretty literal. It even drips or hangs on the wound from the head's left side (our right).
Where could John have seen injuries inspiring, seemingly "off the cuff", such a well thought-through image, though drawn in haste? Are there any publicly acknowledged deaths of young men with head problems or injuries in Beatles history? Yes. Though John didn't see him dead, there was the early friend and bandmate Stu Sutcliffe, who died of head problems, possibly brought about by a beating to the head, but not with brains spilled. So ... Anybody else, a young male, whom John might have seen dead and cared about? In any part of public Beatles history or general lore? Yes, for whatever reason, Paul was associated with death by car crash, at least since the Beatles Book Monthly in February 1967, as we've said, and in other places seems to be depicted with head injury from the crash or undefined cause.
Fig. 22. Whether Paul died or didn't ...

By 1971, John's PID "clues" -- whether done as jokes or in real mourning about a secret death -- in the artwork and music were already known to the world in a big way. Does the drawing fit the PID clue information or style, however? We will argue below that yes, the general clue information in the drawing fits other clue symbols. The emotional and medically diagrammatic style, we may find, does not really fit most other clues -- except that the drawing in fact makes the drawing a BETTER fit, a better clue, for an intimate real-case scenario, if Paul died in fact: the drawing, we'll see, is more personal, more informative than the usual public "PID clues".
But as John must have guessed, this drawing gift remained rather private for a long time after it was drawn. (Actually, in a sense it was private until now, where I am drawing attention to it. Even if it appeared elsewhere before, it was never highlighted.) If John was in fact hiding the real death of Paul, of course, it was a perfect way to tell people, without its being immediately obvious to the owner or the general public. The article you are reading will argue that John did the drawing as a false or a true clue -- though with "only" symbols and medical diagrams. (It is not a notarized affidavit, so if Paul had died in 1966, John could have blamed PID rumours themselves as his source!) IF ... IF Paul died, though, and was replaced by someone else who was asked in, then the drawing as PID "style of clue" is far from a joke, and John gave a quiet, medically diagrammatic, direct, poignant message for posterity through this drawing.

1. The figure is dead.
Aside from speculating who it is in the drawing, or whether it was intended as a Paul is Dead theme, we must first establish and note that he IS dead, since no-one has identified this fact before putting a meaning on it. We will be describing the exact features of the drawing, in Part 1.
To note that he is dead is not, of course, to say who it is, or if it must be a real person. 
Also, no-one can claim that the find of any drawing matching a theme, STRICTLY SPEAKING, proves someone did a crime or witnessed a crime or a death. This is obvious, but must be stated, to prove that I know that. Sometimes, however, high likelihood of witnessing something can be proved if a drawing is off the beaten path for the artist, contains similar themes and details accurately. Nevertheless, we have PID themes in other generally accepted PID clues, whether or not there was a real death. We will consider first whether this drawing fits the broad themes of PID, not whether Paul actually died.

As to speculations on what the drawing is about, i.e., who the figure is: So far, two meanings have been suggested for the drawing:
1. that it is a farmer digging2. that it is a "Fool on the Hill" figure, based on the Beatles song of that name.
As we'll see in Part 1 of the article, in more detail, the collector who first owned the drawing had no opinion, at least in 1972; the DJ who got the collector and John to meet and interviewed the collector about it in early 1972, seems to have thought the dark shape on or from the head was a Fool cap; the current owner says nothing (openly, at least, though perhaps, as we'll see below, he may have noted not only the death aspect but a PID meaning privately); finally, in January 2013, two article-writers covered the general story of how the drawing came to be made and say they think the figure is a farmer.
None of these persons commented that the figure, whatever else he is, is dead. This would seem strange, until we realize the following: people often don't process the literal facts in front of them before coming to conclusions about the meaning of something, if there is a meaning.
Fools' caps have tassels and bells at the end, not dots and tassels near the face, at least in common imagery.

Fig. 23.  Image from here, cached here.Fig. 24.  Unusual live person with "googly", wonky, weird eyes. In John's figure, the eyelids are split with the left-right head injury direction; there are two-way injuries and blood and gore. These things should indicate that the shovel and dirt are likely of a self-dug, symbolic grave, not a farmer with a dug row for sowing seed. [Image from here.]

Plus, the drawing's dots and hanging lines of gore are all over the face and hang from the left-hand head wound. So he is not the "Fool" in an abstract sense. If he is supposed to be a farmer, this might be indicated in the digging, which seems to be underfoot and in front of him (in perspective). But the drawing is, after all, somewhat cartoonish and dirt underfoot and even into the ground (in cut-away imagery) would look a bit like it's in front of the figure; the association of shovel and dug-up earth underfoot as a grave seems more reasonable with the death head of the figure.

The injuries, while not forensically literal, are diagrammatically literal enough to be medically informative of 2 forms of head damage and much eye damage (or at least an ugly aspect to the eyes of the dead man).

So: whatever John was drawing this for, the injuries and eyes combined show the guy is dead. Very, very dead. And no-one else has remarked on even that simple fact so far, to my knowledge.

It is not clear if any images of the drawing were public before this year, though there is some suggestion that an image of the album it was drawn on was on the current owner's Website for a while.

2. John was not noted for violent death drawings. So this is not likely to be some random macabre image. Whom is it about? It is not a typical doodle idea, due to the medical unusual (cross-directional) injuries. Was it a theme thought through prior to the drawing for some daydreamed macabre purpose, or instead literally a memory of a death, whoever's death?
For the moment, without putting meaning onto the drawing, we will mention that the figure is comforted by a dog, is holding a shovel, is digging (seemingly beneath himself) in disheveled shoes and is pictured with a setting sun behind him and a plant under the dog. The drawing is large, fairly well thought out, though done in haste. It is poignant in feeling, though definite enough to be grisly in basic aspects of the content. Poignancy alone suggests this is not a random doodle, as does the fact John did not doodle death in general.

Fig. 25.  The current owner of the drawing making a definite, awkwardly clear "3" (not first 3 fingers, so a definite effort to produce) with his fingers. Paul was also the 3rd Beatle of the final lineup to join (other than the current McCartney in 1966, if he is not the original McCartney).


1.Aside from the symbolic and medically diagrammatic qualities, discussed below, I will right now make brief mention of THE PATHOS. Other than being rather grisly if you think about the drawing, the overall impression is pathetic, i.e., has grief or deep feeling: the face and boyish, awkward body is almost cute; then one notices the eyelids are split and imagery of dots for gore becomes, in one's inner imaging, truly grisly. Because of not only the literal items under discussion below, which make it of the style of content of PID clues, but also the feeling of tenderness in the cuteness and restraint of the literal drawing style and expression of face, we might make the observation this drawing captures a great grief, which suggests on its own that the person depicted was much loved, and could, in that sense alone, at least, and hypothetically, be John's dear Paul.

2.**TEAR STAINS AND OTHER STAINSare incorporated into the drawing, according to the most recent article (parts one and two) about Morrell's acquisition of it. Morrell doesn't say if John did the drawing in front of him. If he did, then Morrell might have said to the article writer that they are tear stains. It would be nice to know how the article writer knows they weren't water stains? Maybe he doesn't either way. [Though the article suggests in a general way that the drawing was done at the same time as the signing, but at one point, it also says that an assistant brought it and John drew a cloud and signed it.] Did Morrell make some offhand comment to the writer that he had seen John crying, not knowing why, and assuming, perhaps, it was due to the feelings around the emotional evening they had shared that night, going over Beatle memorabilia that night? I wonder, though, as you can probably tell, whether that drawing was done in John's private time, at some other time. In the Youtube with audio interview from a few months after the drawing was done, nothing is said in this regard either way.

3.** a CLEAR SPLIT HEAD, TWO WAYS, with gory matter coming from the top and dripping on the left. The split from left to right is best visible only with higher resolution, when the full splitting revealed as a dotted line. See high-res image above, to see gory matter more clearly. The DJ talking to the fan Morrell, whose album it was, suggests in a Jan 1972 audio interview that the drawing might be the "Fool on the Hill", a character in the song of the same name from the Magical Mystery Tour album. -- Remember, neither Morrell nor the DJ comment that it is a dead man, only that the drawing is "weird, really weird." -- As to the "Fool" reference: The DJ is probably basing his impression on the digging, sun, and at least subconsciously maybe also remembering the SUSPECTED Paul is Dead cartoon image of the fool, a supposed clue on the Magical Mystery Tour booklet. This supposed clue is of the fool with his head cracked open, plus his left hand under the hill (in thick black outline), warped in shape, with only 4 fingers and so like limbs, looking like a dead person underground.
Fig. 26.  Magical Mystery Tour album booklet image, 1967
4.** BLOOD spurting from the top of the head in a stylized pointy shape.Some people think they see a "fool's cap" on the fellow (such as by a commenter below, and in a mention of the Beatles' "Fool on the Hill" theme). It must be noted, however, that this proposed "cap" starts with a broken-egg head extending up, and the proposed tassels are around the head, whereas fool's caps have their tassels at their ends. As well, most of the proposed tassels are very jagged, as seen in close-up. There is also a split, left to right on the head and dead eyes. Unless we have a very unusual, jagged fool's cap AND a dead man, the large dark area from the head upward is not a cap at all, but rather bloody brain matter spattering up (sorry to make the point!). The dots around the jagged area also can't be bells on tassels, because the dots and drip lines are on the face elsewhere and in the gaping left side wound on the head. These dots and lines have to be gore. One person also has suggested this digging man might be a farmer. But such a farmer is dead, a very large oversight to miss about this putative farmer.

5.** DEAD EYES: The fellow has split lids on the outsides, following the trajectory of a left-right wound; the eyes thus might be dislocated or generally the eye sockets damaged. They're wonky eyes, not googly but wildly off-kilter with one eye staring left, one drooping with lid down on figure's right (from death/damage, as many have suspected John's image of "egg man" in the same "I am the Walrus" refers to: a dropped eye, just as in the "Free as a Bird" video done posthumously, where there is a reflection in a police van of a deformed Paul head, just before showing the car crash scene with John looking on, done with computer addition. -- And "egg man" in John's "I am the Walrus" song could mean in general a broken head or dislocated eggs of eyes. (The image of the Walrus itself, is suspected by some to refer not only to mystical "God" references and "Death or Transition", but also to a broken or torn mouth, which might have made Paul's teeth seem more prominent.) ---- Remember, though: songs have emotional and artistic reasons for being, most of the time, even if they have a more literal theme as well.

6.** DEFINITE DIGGING/ SHOVEL. Digging, directly underfoot, like a grave. --- Also: Graves and shovels feature prominently in some Beatles movies, videos (including the "Free as a Bird" video) and the photos in Time and Life magazines about Paul's "non-"death, and in some photos of John.

7.** VERY DISHEVELED SHOES, almost falling off, torn, undone (missing shoes or symbolic removal of shoes is one of the supposed Abbey Road cover album clues and also the Magical Mystery Tour Album and film's image from "I am the Walrus" -- where Paul's shoes are set aside in film and bloody as well, in printed booklet image below:

Fig. 27.  Sir Paul plays without shoes in the MMT (Magical Mystery Tour) movie, 1967, his shoes sitting beside the bass drum. (He will also go shoeless on the Abbey Road album cover, in 1969, as well.) Shoes dissociated from a body or disheveled or bloody are clearly a mini-theme, which continues in our 1971 drawing. The still from the film above, pictured in MMT booklet shows red blotches added to the shoes. Only one blotch shows well here, but if you look you can see others on the tops. This is a traditional image for PID clues. The blotches are, because the alternate explanation is that it's a very bad printing error, and there is no error which adds multiple red blotches like that in one area. Also note the drum in the movie & here seems to say "Love the [hand pointing] 3 Beatles". The scene is from the "I am the Walrus" section in the movie, which also refers to the "egg man", which might be a dual reference to pure surreality and to a cracked head as we see in the drawing on this blog. (Source for image here, but note: falls for, or deliberately pushes same theories as the disinformation film "Paul Really is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison", which claims some very ridiculous things about the PID case, along with some old clue info, and both the site for this image and the movie leave out the materials on forensic image comparison which I present in Part 2, below.)

8.**Big SETTING SUN. Setting sun imagery is not unique to the fool idea of the song, "Fool on the Hill", and fits death as well.

9.** UNHAPPY EXPRESSION. Blank angle of emotion to mouth; broken line as expression of mouth.

10.** a DOG or sheepdog and flower. (It's not a ram, but if it were a ram, it would be even more obvious, though not comforting. It would be an obvious Sir Paul reference, though, since his "Ram" album was out by then, as was the Wild Life album, both by his band Wings.) If it's a sheepdog like Martha, this could be referencing the dog of the present Sir Paul McCartney, a.k.a. "Macca". (He is nicknamed Faul - false Paul - by those who know of PID. If he is a replacement musician, he would be a truly "5th Beatle" unlike George Martin, producer, who often wins this title.) - Macca's farm was used in photos with sheep and shepherd's crooks and Martha, the sheepdog, about whom there is also a Beatles song. The farm was used in these images in Time and Life and Rolling Stones magazines to "prove Paul was still alive" at his farm in Scotland, in 1969-1970. Of course, it might be just a dog for comfort, or a McCartney family dog.

11.Comments on PID medical suggestions from clues, as represented in this drawing:
If Paul died, it was wise of John not to be even more obvious: the image thus looks more pathetic (something for our sympathy) and strange, sort of hiding the definite look of the body. On the other hand, it's certainly NOT hiding some major wounds. So, though the drawing is not obviously a skeletal-style death head, in fact, it's blatant enough.
Fig. 28.  A reminder of something like the emotional impact of what John could have drawn, IF Paul died in the manner diagrammatically and sympathetically depicted in John's drawing, had John wanted to have been even more literal. As it is, the eyes, head and gore or whoever is dead in John's drawing can turn one's stomach if one takes away the general sweetness of style and expression of the mouth and nose. [Image cached here; from this blog.]

MOUTH UNDAMAGED: Many have suspected that if Paul died, Paul's mouth was messed up in the death (car crash or murder), due partly to the "I am the Walrus" imagery of large teeth in Walruses. Another reason to think this would be the rather unpleasant mouth area on the "Free as a Bird" video's head in the police van window (mentioned above). If he died, and if this is partly true and the drawing is a PID clue, of course adding a very grisly mouth would have made the drawn image too gross to give to someone, and was not John's style of behaviour with fans. As it is, this is a very macabre image, if not photo-realistic, so to speak, for what Paul literally suffered.
SIDE-TO-SIDE CRACKED HEAD AS DISTINCT FROM TOP "HARD BOILED EGG CRACK" ON HEAD: The dotted line across the figure's head in our drawing (at the eyes, roughly continuing the more obvious gash on the left side) implies the top of the head is not only spilling upwards but also cracking across. It has long been suspected that Paul was decapitated or partly sheared of head at top. ("You were in a car crash/ And you lost your hair," sung by Ringo in "Don't Pass Me By" is one source for such an idea. Hair would stand for head, poetically -- so as not to be too grisly: we don't lose hair in crashes, unless one means burning hair in a fiery crash.) One way or the other, the drawing stops at this level of being grisly, in spite of being rather medically suggestive about at least two wounds to the head -- side and top.

Smaller scale here just for easy viewing reminder.

Fig. 29.

Fig. 30.  Again: The current owner of the drawing making a definite, awkwardly clear "3" (not first 3 fingers, so a definite effort to produce) with his fingers. Paul was also the 3rd Beatle of the final lineup to join (other than the current McCartney in 1966, if he is not the original McCartney).


-- END OF PART 1. ............................................................................
PART 2Whether Paul died or didn't ...MAIN OBJECTIONS TO LITERALIST PID CASE:& questions about circumstance or specific types of forensics which are missing at this time. This section is included here for all readers, but especially for the benefit of Paul is Alive (PIA) proponents

"The Central Intelligence Agency 'owns' everyone of any significance in the major media."~ William Colby, Former CIA director and avid boater, victim of a "boating accident", with coffee left boiling in the cabin

If you are not a radically "Paul is Alive" (PIA) believer, you might want to SKIP this following section until later -- for though you may also wonder about these objections, in the main they are immediately suggested as "showstoppers" by PIA proponents. For non-PIA believers, this section is a side benefit, providing succinct overview of main positions on either side about the circumstances of the case and where the evidence is at presently. (Fyi on PIAthe main PIA Web video presence includes well-known videos here and here.)
Paul is Alive (PIA) proponents:
The purpose of the following is merely to show these particular items below are not show-stopper objections; it is NOT to argue PID itself. IT IS ALSO NOT TO FORCE PIA PERSONS TO "FIND THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEM TOTALLY CONVINCING, EITHER! I know this. Let's say PIA is, in fact CORRECT that Paul McCartney is one person through to the present: the arguments for it remain non-absolute on every point of circumstance and physical characteristics from bodily material (DNA, fingerprints) at present. Only photo comparisons, properly done are available, maybe; no point of circumstance or musicality is logically definitive at this point.
So the danger is in holding THESE PIA CONVICTIONS WITH CERTAINTY (for some, just at this time, for others, at any time). Hypothetically speaking ...If photo forensics haven't been done properly on proper photo specimens for the right tests), PIA could be provably correct using some -- not all -- of the following questions in isolation, but more information would have to come to light on them.

Some of the following objections:are not absolute by nature (though some people think or hope they are). [These would never be sufficient as arguments in principle. Families might or might not talk in fact, but the question, in principle is far from absolute.]are absolute in the TYPE of objection, but only if the right information comes forward, which hasn't happened YET, either way (e.g., having DNA, fingerprints).


ALL Paul is Alive (PIA) proponents have suggested some of the following objections based on the following, with absolute conviction:
"IF we grant the idea that Paul had died in 1966, from whatever method, officially covered up to this day, hypothetically speaking, then the following would be show-stopper (absolute) objections to it in fact."
Is this so? Let's handle each one to see if is an absolute argument by nature, or absolute at this time, given the current information available either way ...

1. IF Paul died: The family of Paul would have been upset or "noticed" or talked. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. Well, if they were in on it, they noticed. Ordinary folk in ordinary situations normally do talk, that's obvious, but trauma and/or pressure can do strange things.
We find in other cases where there is abuse or some other crime that sometimes whole neighbourhoods deny the events, but also that those who suffer the situation don't speak much, either. In more formal situations, threats, privacy feelings and re-inforcement from their friends, and other things, such as bribes and even new friendships with fellow victims or even nice-guy abusers can form. We don't know what went on, if Paul died, but we can at least assess the question of human reaction here as being not absolute that any of these things could go on in combination. One other motivation in the PID situation, if it's real, would be loyalty to the band.
THIS BAND WAS NOT MERELY A BAND in the general public mind. This band would NOT have been likely able to continue without Paul, in the public mind. The family of Paul would have known this, but it also could have been impressed upon them by those who were afraid for the continuance of the band after Paul's death, if the death occurred. One thing we do know is that Sir Paul and Mike McCartney (Paul's younger brother, now calling himself Mike McGear) are very close friends. Is it IMPOSSIBLE for them to be close? Not at all. They could be friends through shared trauma or the shared major changes in their lives (for Sir Paul, it was a largely positive change).
In addition, they even could have known each other before Paul died (if he died). We don't know when and where the band met Sir Paul, if he's not Paul McCartney. Sir Paul does seem to have really been in the London avant-garde scene before Paul putatively died; even PID proponents mostly agree that he might well have known the Beatles already through that scene. He is emphatic and accurate about the London scene, his role in it and knowing Yoko before John did. If Paul himself died, it might well be that Sir Paul knew the Beatles before the replacement.
Also, McGear is known, with Sir Paul, to be interested in Alastair Crowley, at least for Crowley's positive "free-thinking" and clever aspects. They share these esoteric interests (without being sinister, necessarily). John Lennon, himself, is among those who commented on the fact, in interviews. Some of the clips are available through the Iamaphoney "Rotten Apple" series on Youtube, but -- to my own shame -- I don't have the time to go look that up. Sorry. It's a long series and I did that aspect of questioning, researching and sifting some time ago.
One way or another, we don't know right now, how in individual instances the cover-up unfolded, if it occurred. But if there is forensic evidence properly done from the photos properly assessed, that Paul did die, then, simply put, there was a cover up as well as friendships.
There might also be intelligence service or police pressure on the family and friends to keep silent -- even just to protect the intel and police for protecting the secret. There are in fact many non-sinister ways to read the evidence and hypothesize about the cover-up itself, if there is one. (Of course, one can see a potentially darker aspect here, too.)
John and Sir Paul were definitely friends as well as at odds. John and the rest could have bonded with their new "best friend" as well as dumped their resentments about having to lie to continue with the band -- as they would have felt, if Paul really was replaced so they could continue.
But the main thing here is that if Paul died, insiders DID speak, UNOFFICIALLY, through the clues. There WAS a rumour, if the Beatles Book Monthly disclaimer was a real containment announcement. The secret, if it is a real one, is OUT, not perfectly quiet. So the objection that people would say SOMETHING is correct in that sense, but not that they had to come out publicly. Fear/ money/ getting on with private mourning would be possibilities for how they justified silence if this cover-up was done.
In addition if a cover-up was meant to be temporary and got out of hand, other aspects would come into play after the initial "switch-over" was in progress. Again, simply for helping with a cover-up, intel/police would likely seek to cover their own butts, etc. (There is one more possibility in this aspect of the case: if Paul died by murder in order that someone could infiltrate the band, or the death was accidental but was used to infiltrate the band, this raises yet more reasons to be afraid of speaking about the events. But we don't know that.)
PID proponents DO NOT HAVE TO KNOW HOW THE COVER-UP TOOK PLACE OR HOW PAUL DIED for it to be provable, if the right photo comps can be done PROPERLY, to show there was a replacement.

2.  IF Paul died: The Beatles were friends throughout, and a double wouldn't be. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. Well, no, of course: there were tensions about power and continuing (as we all know publicly), which would have been exacerbated by resentments of "the new guy" if he was a "new guy". See point 1, above.
PIA proponents seem to forget that Sir Paul slipped up and admitted that he knew Yoko before she met John. (Sir Paul got very embarrassed when he briefly admitted this fact in 2004 on Howard Stern's show). This doesn't mean that Paul died, but it does suggest that if Paul died, we might be seeing evidence that Sir Paul knew the Beatles through the avant garde scene before the switch and/or was body doubling already for the Beatles.
Again, people can become friends in trauma situations, despite resentments. (This objection #3 shows a severe lack of imagination -- as hypothesis-making faculty -- in operation, due to prejudice, where the "double has to be hated".)
So, whether these arguments are in fact true, they show that the idea that friendships COULD NOT form between some replacement persons and some beneficiaries of a replacement -- in this case, the Beatles, who got to continue their music for a while, without a hitch publicly, if there was a replacement.

3. IF Paul died: Somebody would dig up the body. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. Digging up the body is not true if the person were average, or, among police investigators, if a squash effect (coverup) is in place for such activities, from other police in key places/ intelligence services, both of whom would have to be involved already in procuring or allowing the double to function at first, even temporarily.

4. IF Paul died: "Somebody" would procure DNA or fingerprints. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. This is a nice objection; it would be an absolute type of evidence to have. But we don't have such information available with a proper chain of custody. As to the idea that "some tabloid person" or other person would prove this, we have to realize that without official endorsement of the chain of custody, nothing would be done.
As well, few people realize how even tabloids don't allow some stories. The Beatles are beloved. So we can't be sure (i.e., absolute) logically to say they would definitely go after this issue. We can't decide either way, to be honest.
We also have to realize how few people who "know" that Paul died, among the general public, would bother to do this kind of thing, or get close to Sir Paul. This kind of thing takes chain of custody proofs, other persons providing comparative DNA, money, dedication and lack of fear.
It is thus not an absolute objection that "someone" could or would procure the DNA or fingerprints at all, or succeed in getting the information to the public credibly.
The one instance we have in a formal chain of custody situation is thaat Sir Paul's DNA did come under suspicion (along with claims that his handwriting was righthanded instead of lefthanded). This occurred in a paternity case (Germany). Normally, we might well trust the findings of the scientists hired by the people bringing the suit; unfortunately, this was OUTSIDE the case. The case had already accepted the initial finding, which was simply that the DNA of Sir Paul did not match that of the adult woman claiming she was a daughter of Paul. It was only AFTER the case was no longer cross-examining anything, that the woman decided the handwriting and DNA should be considered as maybe having been "switched" with someone else's.
In isolation of other pro-PID arguments, we have NO WAY externally to know at this point whether the woman was lying, or DNA and handwriting were "switched", were perfectly legit, or were wrong but not because of a switch -- rather because the daughter of Paul wasn't dealing with Paul himself, but his double.
The issue of what fingerprint evidence we have is interesting: Derek Taylor, press agent for the Beatles in the relevant period after Paul himself supposedly died, commented later that a person "doesn't need to prove" himself as "existing" by giving fingerprints, since he "just exists". This of course begs the question of: "exists as who physically vs. by name only?"
Also, it is my understanding that some Paul documents and fingerprints came onto eBay a few years ago and were immediately taken off by police, which, if true, is hardly surprising, if Paul died. The person who put them on, if I recall correctly, said he was just surprised they wanted Paul memorabilia and personal stuff when (like PIA-ers), he assumed things like this were a dime a dozen ... in terms of common enough in circulation, as distinct from in price. :)
A PIA proponent also suggested once that "after all this while" his fingerprints would have been taken. Again, as with DNA-gathering hypotheses, this position does not address fact that of course his prints have been taken (or, if it is two men, "both of their prints were taken") but that the prints wouldn't be in regular, unprotected places, if intelligence services made sure the records were not readily available.
5. IF Paul died: There would be voice analysis to prove it. -- NOT ABSOLUTE AT THIS TIME. Voice spectrum analysis and other vocal analysis have been done. The difficulty is that the studies are not formal, except the one by Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami (1969). He found differences in the voice(s) singing on the Sergeant Pepper album vs the Revolver album from a year before. But he didn't formally write up his findings -- that I know of. He took on the case during the brouhaha about the PID "clues" in the USA. Without more information, it remains unclear when arguing for the literalist PID case or arguing against it, what absolute or non-absolute methods he used, for the Beatles morphed the sound on a lot of the early songs. Voice spectrum harmonics provide a good -- in fact, under certain good circumstances, an absolute -- indicator of whether there is a difference between people. It would prove whether Paul in the two periods of pre- and post-1966, is the same fellow: since one person's undamaged voice does not change radically in a year or two. We don't know, as I said, whether Truby did such an analysis as part of his study. On the other hand, there have been spectrum analyses done on voice harmonics, using modern software. Interestingly, they have found differences -- but they're not formal studies, so people can easily dismiss them out of hand, right now. It would be interesting to have more work done.

6. IF Paul died: They're identically brilliant, left-handed, similar-sounding (or "the same") musically and vocally. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. Actually, many musicians play McCartney (and Elvis!) music identically enough to be "the same", and talented people can often learn other-handedness fairly well, over time. (I, myself, am naturally partly ambidextrous.)
Also, Sir Paul did NOT play live in front of cameras on guitar until later. If he was right-handed (with some ambidexterity, but not in bass playing), as some have speculated:If right-handed, the new person, Sir Paul, would have had to be protected for a while. There would have to be a delay on live broadcasts for a while, or of his playing complex songs on the guitar, at least -- or without some background, pre-recorded sound playing. The other bandmates would have to help cover for the switch. This delay in fact historically happened, whatever the reason. The full sound of the songs could not have been done live, because of overdubs, but the band could have played part of the instrumental lines properly in studio or other concerts. They did no live concerts until years after the putative late-1966 replacement (one, the Rooftop Concert, in 1969). And for the first year after the putative replacement, the band mostly mimic playing or play nothing at all, on broadcasts from studio filming, for whatever reason. (See fake playing by Sir Paul and the others in "I am the Walrus" for the "Magical Mystery Tour" film, summer 1967. Sir Paul does the same -- occasional picking -- on the BBC studio "All You Need is Love" broadcast, June 25, 1967; John is also not playing. Later in the year, in all 3 promotional films which were worked into one, for "Hello Goodbye", again no-one is playing very seriously and a lot of time is spent not playing at all: here. Those films were Nov 19, 1967, and that's it for the year.)
As to voice style and general sound, Sir Paul (if he is not Paul) can be said to be a better match of the calm, flat voice style of Paul's reserved styles of voice, but not his boppy or happy style of body and voice. Usually, PIA proponents do not tend to notice or support this claim, but when they do, they say ALL CHANGE IS DUE TO AGE OR DRUGS. This is, of course, unprovable either way, without other arguments about body forensics and facial forensics, or direct proof of identity differences (background for Sir Paul: original name, real age, etc., if he is not Paul).
[Note: IF Paul died: the "Wizard" scene in "Magical Mystery Tour" film is the original Paul. The boppy version of his happiness is radically different than the happy moments of Sir Paul in the same film and year. PIA proponents might see no difference, or claim that Paul "matured quickly" (even contemporaneously), or this segment must have been from pre-1967 footage -- IF you see differences between the two men.]
If Paul died, we could postulate that surviving, unpublished Paul tape segments and songs could have been worked in. And Sir Paul could copy some style features for his own songwriting. Though PIA proponents have suggested that some songs (such as "Helter Skelter", most notably) do not clearly from a trajectory of what would be known from Paul's boppy, lively personality, they always suggest that this is is due to age and/or drugs. Again, the case can be argued well either way, at this point, if there are no forensic arguments which are solid.
For voice print harmonics (inaudible traces of persons' unique voices), see point 5, above.


7. IF Paul died: How could they keep this a secret to this day. -- NOT ABSOLUTE. It's not a secret, in some sense, if it happened. To the degree the PIA people think it is, possibly it's because they don't do their homework on the ACTUAL PROOFS, rather than the circumstances which SEEM to be showstoppers, which would keep it a formal secret with open-secret "clues". In this situation, we could argu that they themselves do most of the work not to help disclosure, by those who might want to admit it more openly!

8. "I JUST KNOW" and "PEOPLE'S HEADS CAN CHANGE SLIGHTLY AFTER ALTERING THEMSELVES THROUGH ENLIGHTENMENT OR DRUGS". -- NOT ABSOLUTES. The first is a non-starter for argument; the 2nd has no bearing: even if a head grew or shifted slightly in adulthood (not regularly medically possible), the head in this case changes in all directions at once (and thus, also rules out lens distortion, in full-frontal, proper comparisons). You can go to Part 2 for info if you are a careful thinker. Beyond that, I can't help anyone further on these last 2 claims. There are a few (rare) Paul is Alive proponents who would like to say the earlobes are the same. Taking their postulate seriously for a moment: under any circumstances does a small lobe look tiny? Yes. Does it ever look extremely droopy? No.

9. LASTLY, that anything can be "proven" and "researched" or "under the label of science". -- NOT ABSOLUTE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOOD ARGUMENTS AND SCIENCE ABOUT WEIRD-SOUNDING TOPICS. The issue is, of course, is the proof good, absolute. If it eliminates other possibilities, in combination with other things or in isolation, then something is absolute within the specific case. So ... in part 2, let's see if the forensic photo analysis by experts is well done or flawed. It's a thorough basic argument, not requiring formal expertise to get the gist of. It's written with us in mind.Some PIA-ers have accused items (such as this post) of being "mere bias". There is, of course, a difference between absolute and non-absolute arguments, to start with, and this segment addresses non-absolute arguments anyone can wonder about, but which are among the main objections from PIA-ers. The second thing those particular PIA-ers are accusing, with the idea of "mere bias" is, simply, that a careful argument can be made, on a "weird-sounding" topic -- even if the argument is wrong. What constitutes at least care in argumentation? Well, when care is present, careful arguments acknowledge the other side, pointing out weaker and stronger aspects of each side, and are cautious to point out what is unknown at this time, or incomplete, vs what is known. I have worked hard here, to do so. Not all persons do, but that is what a full argument does. So please note your side's positions are covered here. Beyond that, this blog also acknowledges that on the PID side, there are some mere hypotheses, too.
[But if, as one person did, you get to the earlobes (see Part 2) and think they are the same: THAT I can't help anyone with. THAT is merely bizarre mental processing. If he had special earlobe surgery, fine; but there certainly IS a difference. :) ]

10. End note on circumstances, for the extremely curious, or for those who have heard of more than the usual ideas around the pro-literal PID case:
Some have suggested that Paul was murdered. If so, they say, corrupted members of what's broadly termed intelligence services intended a kind of infiltration by design, for drug promotion and generally to steer the band to do ideological mind control through art, not necessarily through openly ordering the remaining 3 bandmates to do so, but through suggestive influence, through the new man, Sir Paul. Intelligence services could also have taken advantage of the situation, if it occurred.
No matter what, however, if Paul died and there was a cover-up for whatever reason or intended length, some intelligence services operatives and police officers would have to have helped the cover-up, AT LEAST. This is the most conservative statement possible, if there was a cover-up of a real death of Paul.

(Further on this subject, for those who really want to get into the weirder or uglier side of speculation regarding intelligence circles and the general popular music scene, not only regarding PID-specific knowledge:

Rather infamously, Dr. John Coleman has written of his belief that intelligence circles did not merely infiltrate or influence the Beatles, but that the Beatles were created for Mind Control and Propaganda purposes by the sinister -- and it IS partly sinister; with that I have no disagreement -- Tavistock institute in London. But there are serious problems with Coleman's claims ... which centre around the idea that a classical musician named Theodor Adorno wrote the Beatles' music. A good initial introduction to the problem can be found here.
This very real organization is known to attempts propaganda, often called "public relations" work. In addition, some claim that it has been linked to torture mind control experiments for the British MI5&6 and, by extension, the US CIA. (One PIA proponent has recently suggested to me that there is NO SUCH THING as group control, propaganda success, advertising success, even if there are attempts to push them. This position is scientifically untenable, but in case someone here is thinking that, I mention it flat-out.)
Coleman's thesis about the creation and purpose of the band overall has no merit, provable in many ways, but his general points are not so far off the mark about intelligence circles' dark sides. Some information about his good and bad hypotheses is here.
The general question of whether intelligence circles are pushing, influencing, artistically suggesting subjects to powerful artists is well documented, if the evidence is considered carefully. An imperfect but overall investigation to start with is the full set of pages -- yes, one needs to work through it all, to sift the main points -- about 1960s intelligence influence on the mass arts, especially music, in the USA at least, is here, under "Inside the LC".
One can also find material on this problem of Intelligence and alternative military groups, double-agent "moles", etc., in studies of cults and pedophilia cover-ups, and can study assassination rings in serial killer stories. Some of those types of cases are also covered at that link in some of the "Newsletters", but also is in many other places than that link. NOT ALL RESEARCH INTO THESE AREAS IS DEFINITE OR PERFECT; some is very good, however. Most persons who present these facts and hypotheses are mixed in accuracy and in quality overall. However, it seems to me that there are enough suggestions and even definite aspects to some of this, to support the general statement that such intelligence and alternative military para-networks do exist and wreak cultic havoc, as well as other kinds.
On the other hand, this takes us away from the most conservative interpretation of intelligence circle/ police activity in the PID situation, if it was real. So, again, either way, if Paul died, intelligence circles would not have to have infiltrated the Beatles through Sir Paul, to have been required for the COVER-UP AT LEAST, if there was a cover-up.)


To end this Part 2 segment:
WHETHER PAUL DIED OR NOT:The 9 main objections above either have a non-absolute nature, or are logically not absolute at this time (pending more background information). This suggests to me that I should joke merely about the conviction with which some people hold these non-absolute objections:

Fig. 31.  END OF PART 2. ............................................................................
PART 3   Whether Paul died or didn't ... 2. Second, who is this in the drawing, dead?(For what John said about PID or conspiracy in general, other than denials and weird clues, see below this section's pics in GREEN section)

Right, now, who died this way in Beatle lore? Well, we've been dealing with the topic roundabout for a while: Paul was supposed to have died or at least figuratively speaking or potentially, jokingly died in Beatles imagery. (Again, WHO died is a different question than noticing bloody imagery at all in the drawing, of course.) Let's see if there is a way to tell for SURE if Paul died, if some of the evidence is understood carefully. Is there any proof available, of this absolute quality?
In other words how, if at all, could we know if he was replaced? We can only know through forms of forensic study of the man. And we can use photo evidence forensically (i.e., as a physical item in a case, but also about a body's nature), if that photo evidence is luckily of certain KINDS, and medical principles as evidence are properly understood. In these situations, aspects of facial structure can be FORMALLY presented, not based on impression. It means that items of a certain telltale nature enough to be studied properly, not ambiguous in key aspects.
We could also use DNA, fingerprints, etc., but we don't have those. So we must use photos.
If the right sample is available, is properly understood and tested, these are absolutes, as in knowables. (Knowables are not absolute in the sense of  the physically undefined qualities, formally named "scientific absolutes", such as in mathematics, or physical but general, as in physics laws, which have specific application but work for many cases. Instead the knowables here would be absolutes in the most appropriate physical sense: that they eliminate all other physical options for that case -- barring divine intervention or all other relevant facts being different -- and instead are truly beyond reasonable doubt.) That would be the only way at present to agree to the literalist PID case, strictly speaking.
Many photo comparisons are badly done; many persons who look at the comps, too, fail to see what must be assessed versus or what cannot be assessed in a given comparison set. The two items below are sufficient, when properly understood.

1.Possibly absolute, but exact comps impossible to attain. Difference is enough to say, however, there seems to be some consistent difference.
Here are two height comparison image sets:
Fig. 32.  The issue with height is that most images aren't sized properly. It seems that Paul was shorter than the Beatles claimed (that passports later were arranged for a slight exaggeration of height -- early on). This is not impossible and other misleading early statements were done for other bands, even if their passports weren't eventually changed. The problem with this comp is that Sir Paul could be using heels and the Bass isn't exactly sized. However, though not "almost 6 feet" and "giant" (an emotional comment from the creator of the image), and Paul may have been slightly larger than 5'8", they are different in general body frame heft and height. Maybe 2 inches or a bit less in height difference, probably. The problem is that floor-level shots allow LITTLE SEEMING CHANGE in perspective, when someone comes forward or back. The bass has to be sized perfectly and because it can't be, the comps are a LITTLE BIT OFF. There is still a size difference, however, in both height -- unknown if has heels in pic 3 -- and HEFT PROPORTIONS. [Image cached here from page here -- imperfect but makes the point if you think it through.]

Fig. 33.  This Gif moving image does not show correctly all the time. Go to source link to see it if it does not work. (UPDATE: OOPS: having trouble locating the original source now.) -- Is the height difference from shoes with heels in the left image (older)? No the man Sir Paul has more heft when sized for Jim McCartney, Paul's father. But also: As a matter of fact, the person doing the comp did NOT do it correctly. But ... it means that Paul younger is a bit too LARGE. IN FACT, this imperfect comparison doesn't size Jim, the father perfectly, so Paul younger is also wrong. The mistake was made because Jim's his head is glowing in the sun and was put in wider into this photo. In other words, the earlier photo is SLIGHTLY LARGER than it was in perfect comparison to the later photo, thus slightly enlarging Paul on the right, too.


2. a)Not absolute, but part of the case:
Regarding the earlobes and other ear features. Most photos show fake ears early on after late-1966, so this is not useful, except possibly by implication. There is a comp of the literal ears below.
The first few examples (even the fact of Sir Paul's use of false ears) are not absolute proof of difference in the two people. Perhaps to cover ROUTINE plastic surgery (anti-aging, etc.), he wore false ears. The Earlobes have already been shown, above, in one weird photo. My guess is that in the photo earlier in this article, Sir Paul was wearing one of the many post-surgery false ears we have more overt photos of, here. Definitely, below, he was (from same page link). Again, perhaps this one was to cover ROUTINE plastic surgery, but sometimes Sir Paul's false ears have clear FLAPS on them along the CHEEKS ...Figs 34 & 35.Even if this was for vainly hiding routine plastic surgery scars, no, this is not some made-up hallucinatory claim. If this was from ROUTINE plastic surgery coverings, fine, but he does sometimes wear false ears. But the radically different lobes are another thing.
Did he have earlobe surgery? Are the false ears with flaps on cheeks to cover up routine plastic surgery cosmetically? The following image normally is presented as being about actual ears, on the right. However, there is a strange width to the ear's join to the head, so this is likely another falsie.

The following comparison, though, is of the ACTUAL EARS of the two periods. This comes from the Wired Italia 2009 forensic study, as mentioned in Preface, Part (G); they find ACTUAL differences (i.e., WITHOUT falsies on Sir Paul from post-1966). More on the forensic study next ...

Ears without falsies. The forensic scientists discussed in point 3, below, did a comparison of the ACTUAL ear shapes. They definitely seem differ. This IS an absolute proof kind of issue, like DNA, but we have this comparison available. Though corroboration is always nice from forensic peers -- and I am sure the scientists would love to hear from you.
One can see that without a major turn of the head, the shape of the upper to lower halves varies on the outside, the placement of the inner shapes is different. There IS some head shift involved here, so some shapes have changed slightly, but not a lot from the exact comparison of eye angle of view from one to the other. Unfortunately, they point to the tragus, the inner ear flap, but it's hard to see and most people aren't used to noticing the differences in that part of the body. The outer ear is easier to notice. Surgery can trim and rework ears, but not without some noticeable differences in other ways showing up. The tragus is nearly impossible to alter in a significant way, barring, again, major differences showing.
You may also notice that both have lobes, but the angle (more oblique) from the outer kink back to the head for Sir Paul on the right, also ends in a longer looking lobe area than does the more acute kink and shorter lobed Paul ear on the left.

There is some difference in lighting, and perhaps slight difference in head angle for viewing, but not by much, as we'll see. The forensic scientists who used these photos pointed out the tragus and the trough (triangular fossa) but not the obvious angle and width of the UPPER LEG OF THE ANTIHELIX, in green. (Sometimes medical persons don't realize what ordinary people need to have demonstrated; finer points are easy for them to miss.)
It would be great to have original full images for head angle perspectival comparison (for foreshortening), for exact changes to be modeled, exactly instead of very well (as is). In extreme foreshortening, the back of the upper leg of the antihelix would flatten out. This is not extreme foreshortening. The gist is clear anyway. Whichever black line one chooses for Sir Paul on right, for the inner trough, the upper flat area is too wide and in the wrong angle to the tragus to be the same man. In other words, the legs of the antihelix and the triangular fossa are at the wrong angle to the general ear shape. -- The images are from the Wired Italia article about PID forensics done by Italian forensic scientists (discussed below, in point 3., with links), except the coloured, delineated image is my own demonstration.
Technical note: There are two black lines for the triangular fossa on Sir Paul. The smaller shape with thicker line shows the assumed small size (the maximum depth area) of the fossa. The impression, that this is so, can give some people the impression that the high part of the leg of the antihelix comes far more forward than it does and almost matches Paul's. The leg of the antihelix on Sir Paul falls away from maximum height more slowly, though, than in Paul. So the real width and depth are not as easy to define. The maximum depth is far forward, the general width of the rise to the maximum is the thinner black line. The actual maximum edge of the fossa, beginning the height of the leg of the antihelix is in red. There is a more general shadow on Sir Paul's ear in the photo, so the fossa seems wider but this is already the gentle rise to the top of the antihelix. For Pauls ear, the shadow is more definite, so I put one thick black line partway through the rise of the antihelix from the depth of the fossa. It corresponds to the thin black line, not thick one, in Sir Paul. 
The reason I'm explaining this is that if a person's impression is of the maximum depth of the fossa, which has caught some reflected light, they might not notice the rise and subtler shift to the maximum of the leg of the antihelix, and STILL think it's the same ear as Paul's. However, once the definition of the actual maximum, front and back, are pointed out, with the thin black line being the mid-rise of the fossa, like the thick black line for Paul there, people should see that the ultimate width of the leg of the antihelix is wider on top, its maximum height, narrower, is in red, and the overall shape of the heights of the antihelix of each person's ear are very different WITHOUT EXTREME FORESHORTENING FROM PERSPECTIVE SHIFT OPTICALLY. The heads are in very slightly different angles, so we see the ears roughly straight on.

Image found cached through Google search from this page, cached here.


3.Two forensic scientists in Italy did a comprehensive study of the two periods for the McCartney figure -- the man pre- and post-1966. They found that in all features which are medically hard or impossible to change radically with plastic surgery, the two persons differ.
Understand RIGHT OFF THE BAT, though, that only PROPER FRONTAL comparisons work for general facial comparisons as formal scientific proof, and only if proper things are considered.
Note that lens distortion changes a whole head RATIONALLY. If bony structures move up, down, in, out all at once, it is not due to lens optics.
Complex modern facial photo forensics in Wired Italia, July 30, 2009 -- but work your way through carefully: Not only has no Italian & English speaker done a formal translation, making the machine translation the only one we have, but also one has to understand proportions to understand the basic arguments. The ear arguments would need expert corroboration; the teeth arguments would be solid, but only if the photos picked show enough of the teeth. The frontal proportions of the faces, when in full frontal position, with enough leeway left for slight muscle/fat changes, are where the argument becomes proven at this time. But one has to understand how.

If this case can be made at the present time, and without experts corroborating about the ear differences shown above (not the false ears), it must currently be made on the basis of frontal photo comparisons ONLY. The issue is PROPORTIONAL, based on bony structure positionsIf they go in and out, up and down, with more than 5% change, in the same photos, this CANNOT BE LENS DISTORTION. This is what the forensic scientists, above, are claiming and show examples of.

There are some problems with the Wired Italia June 2009 article. For one thing, the specifics of all the research done are not given (and could not have been given). Also, some points in the text are not explicated in the photos (and exact dates of photos which are used are not given). The most important problem, though, is when points in the text are not explicated in the photos or captions, or vice versa. Careful reading, looking and thinking reveals, however, what the forensic scientists are studying.Unsmiling, the two men have different widths of mouth. THIS can't be changed in plastic surgery. But no comps are shown of both relaxed, in the article, except the Sgt Pepper photo at top right, which is less well lit. The gist is visible already, and in the bottom left photo of Sir Paul it's also there, but not exact, since Sir Paul is slightly smirking, which begins to widen his mouth. A truly narrow mouth (such as Paul's at rest) would require a much bigger mouth movement -- though not extreme -- to widen it to that extension under his eyes. The scientists also comment on width of lips in relaxed poses.But one of the major changes is between the lower nose and upper lip. The comps for that (relaxed) are profile as well as frontal. They are mentioned in the article but not shown. Here, in miniature, it is hard to see the difference in where the nose actually fits onto the face differently, but they are different lengths of nose proportion. The bottom left photo (2000s?) shows that the extension of the cheekbones of Sir Paul extend beyond the same-sized photo of Paul on the right (early 1960s). It might look at first as if they are the same, but if you notice, the head of Paul, NOT the cheeks, actually extends outside the rectangular figure. Also the nasal tip and connection to the upper lip is different for Sir Paul (though it's not pointed out here). Also, the inner eye height is different (also not pointed out here). The brow ridge extension and shapes are different (not a hair-plucking phenomenon). A slight droop to Sir Paul's eye was added by surgery, it seems. The chin could be lower in the bottom left photo because of a slightly open jaw inside closed lips, but angle of & shape of chin from Paul cuts through impossibly.The Sergeant Pepper inner album cover photo (top left, early-mid 1967) matches neither, by jaw shape, chin shape. However, eye set matches Sir Paul. (The impression of the face is Sir Paul's features with a general rounded-off effect which doesn't match but recalls the gist of the set of -- not merely age of -- Paul's jawline. It also shows the narrow ridgeline of Sir Paul's nose. From the front (bottom left) it is less noticeable, but as his head turns even slightly, the aspect shows. Top left, then, is a composite, doctored image of Sir Paul.The problem with these comparisons is that the magazine or forensic scientists chose to show old and young together, which confuses some issues for comparison in the viewers' minds. The actual items being compared in the article's text are there, but the IMPRESSION of the droopy older cheeks can throw the viewer. (The jawline overlay is not intended to point out the droopy cheeks, but rather the unnaturalness of the jawline from the top right. The rectangular figure is for comparing cheek extension and height, and other features mentioned in this caption and in the article's text are not pointed out in the image.)A comment on eyebrows vs brow ridges: brow ridges are from skeletal structures (including orbital -- eye -- bony structures), below the hair of eyebrows. The term "brow" is used for eyebrow look sometimes, but properly refers to the ridge and upper eye bone shape under the upper lid. The shape of eyebrow hair and brow shape are not identical in the same person -- hair is narrower than brow ridge, and left and right sides vary. However, eyebrows roughly arch or lay horizontal, matching the brow.Plucking the underside of a flatter eyebrow, i.e., an eyebrow which lies on a more horizontal upper orbital ridge and brow, cannot give the rounder orbital shape which corresponds to a rounder brow. Paul had high arches on his eyebrows. His right eyebrow (viewer's right) had a flat area in it, but arched up. Tweezing Sir Paul's right eyebrow gives some lift and kink to it, but it does not give such a high, wide overall shape -- except in doctored photos. The left side is noticeably different.--

How do we get the impression he is the same, if he died, i.e., if indeed the PROPORTIONS of basic temples to under nose to chin length to head height to cheek width to outer mouth to inner eyes all differ?
Rounded cheeks (filler) on a longer face give a feeling of "roundness".Certain head angles and facial expressions can exaggerate or undo an accent on a feature, by muscle and fat position.Stitches to droop the edge of an eye help.Eyebrows differ but not merely by tweezing; they follow a different orbital rim.Noses "angle down" when heads angle down, but in full frontal, they should not differ in tip angle. Lens distortion changes all items rationally, though sometimes extremely.In full frontal lens image, one can have differences between two images (yes, even full frontal!), but they will stretch or compress equally rationally in the same image.Photo manipulation: sometimes able to be told (even if the man is the same one). How to tell? Exact features copied from older to new photos, bad cut and paste jobs and -- yes -- proportions which work for NEITHER set (pre- OR post-1966). ------------ It is the lattermost issue which the forensic scientists in Wired Italia discuss, when they talk of the inner fold image of "McCartney" in the Sergeant Pepper album: his proportions match neither Paul pre-1966 NOR Paul post-1966, except in specific locations. It is a doctored image, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

The study is real, but has not been taken up by other formal experts. The arguments are clear (though the translation is currently bad -- does anyone know Italian and English, and can offer a proper translation?). The arguments would be able to be peer reviewed, if anyone cared to, but no-one has -- for whatever reason: prejudice, laziness, threats, etc.
Some people think the teeth were "changed" after Paul's early 1966 moped accident. The sorts of changes in tooth angles and lengths seem to be impossible for a small palate (real Paul), according to the forensic scientists. Again, however, also, unsmiling, the two men have different widths of mouth. THIS can't be changed in plastic surgery. But no comps are shown of both relaxed. The gist is visible already (see previous comp from Wired, previous image in this blog article) but not exact, since Sir Paul is slightly smirking, which begins to widen his mouth. A truly narrow mouth (such as Paul's at rest) would require a much bigger mouth movement -- though not extreme -- to widen it to that extension under his eyes.

THE ARGUMENTS ARE GENERAL LOGIC, HOWEVER. IF ONE WORKS THROUGH HOW PROPORTIONS DO AND DON'T TRANSFORM ON A SINGLE-VIEW (frontal), FROM LENS VS MEDICAL (literal) DIFFERENCE, the issue is, I think clear. Paul died. If you work it through, again IF you work it through, you will see object-change. Science properly done can sometimes trump one's impression of "sameness", if one holds that impression.


If you prefer, hear my Internet radio interviews discussing the overall PID case and problems:- first here for best overview I've done. It is very cautious and complete.- then, if you wish, here for a 2nd interview, where I mention as well the only John statement about Paul's death, which I think I'm the only one to notice.  RIP John.-[Aside: for the interview I did with an overview of the best materials on John's own death by assassination, and why it is or is not a suspicious death, including the bulletholes in the glass doorway, hear here.]
For the 1st and 3rd audio links, right-click on green name title at top, to save and listen. The middle one is obvious where to right-click to save and listen.

First, we might like to ask whether John Lennon was easily manipulated? Well ...
Not enough to say NOTHING about what follows (i.e., that Paul had died) ... if the very literal drawing is anything to go by, and the other PID clues as well.Remember, the man in this drawing is dead -- no two ways about it, even if it isn't Paul.He fits the injury style diagrammatically, for PID clues.It is poignant, has a grief feeling in tone (facial expression, lack of disgusting elements drawn too literally, though the gore, if one notices, and the eyes, if they'd been done literally, would be very ugly: there are hints of that).The drawing was not well known, but if it had become so, it could be treated with plausible denial (if it was in fact a PID drawing): it was done after PID rumour hit publicly, after years of being in London only. Yet John did the drawing.
Information on what he said verbally, other than denials of a literal PID position, follows the photographs below.

Second, if we're careful about how we know, and Paul -- however it happened -- is no longer with us as Sir Paul, and that the latter must be a 5th bandmate ...
We must summarize in a broad way, some of the objections in the "Intermission" section, above, especially for those who have not worked through it, yet. At this point we want specifically to stress that in many ways we can witness the ability of one musician to copy another.
We get so used to the clean-shaven version of the person Sir Paul from some scenes in late 1968, we forget the transition year (1967) and the fact he later got better cheek work. The behaviours and voice are not as similar as you might think, either, nor the competence on bass nor the movements as musically natural (boppy, swaying), however, the man Sir Paul is a very talented musician. It is my thesis that he loved the Beatles, may already have been sometimes a body double for some needs, a friend/hanger-on or something. We don't know. But with voice morphing (done in analog at the time) and some learning (including left-handed playing of the guitar, if Sir Paul is naturally right handed), it could be done long enough to meld the two faces and manners in the general public's mind. Note, too, that as was covered in the "Intermission" section above, Sir Paul did not play in public for that year, nor was he generally seen on TV playing guitar. He did play a gig with the Beatles in Sergeant Pepper-style outfits for TV in his early years with the band, if he is not Paul McCartney, but he is far from facile with the instrument in that broadcast, and (I forget) might be mimicking playing, with the other Beatles doing the same.


If Paul died:ALL INSIDERS, AGAIN PLEASE NOTE that I do not hate or malign the 2nd Paul McCartney as a person or musician.
First, purportedly, Per Mal Evans, 1 of 2 longtime roadies to the Beatles, Paul was changed. His diary remains barely published, in short extracts, but his book was lost when he was killed in 1976. There is a single page of what purports to be from his now-secretly found book, shown in "The Winged Beatle" movie (1:01:00 overall page shown but bottom blurred; 1:01:07 bottom of page shown only, but unblurred). In the page, Mal purportedly wrote that John was distraught that "it was really happening" & how good the surgery was: it states that someone (blurred), presumably Paul, had been to "the clinic in Kenya" which "had done a good job". ---- As to John's public statements:
1. John's album "Shaved Fish" compilation has on the back his alias "Winston O'Boogie" as saying "A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words". To which conspiracies would he have wanted to refer? Whichever they are, he did refer explicitly to the idea:
At top of rear of album "Shaved Fish": "A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words -- Dr. Winston O'Boogie [John Lennon]" here

2. J claimed on TV he'd heard it first from "the newspapers ... or uh ..." & looks very nervous for a split second. You can see the clip in "The Winged Beatle" at 40:05. For the whole TV show see here. (Dick Cavett Show: main show aired Sept. 11, 1971 but audience questions after were aired in next show, as extra footage of a much-requested guest. The whole is put together at that 2nd link. The clip there is at 1:26:10.) Note: in this clip he denies knowing anything of the clues plan, but as is clear from other clips (see TWB in full for more evidence of clever planting & plans), John also spoke of meaningful items he put in, others speak of backwards sounds AND messages, etc., and Derek Taylor, press agent, slips up: acknowledges Sgt P album was a funeral scene, then says they didn't know what they were doing, which is a logical incongruity. It's a quick flip in the moment, to cover the slip.
3. In a radio interview from 1970 about the Beatles breakup, J talks briefly ostensibly about Epstein's death, then says the album they made after the trauma (& lowers his voice and Yoko laughs) was "Sergeant Peppers, oh I'm not sure": joke for no-one but Yoko, or revelation going by so fast it's almost unnoticeable by mixing stories? In same interview J later talks more directly of Epstein's death & completely naturally speaks at length about Magical Mystery Tour (the real album made after Eppie's death) & his reaction to the death. Seems to be mixing griefs about Paul & Eppie for those in the know.
4. In 1971 movie "Imagine", perhaps freed by USA breaking story of PID, George corrects J jokingly, a bit nervously, hiding his mouth with his napkin a bit, saying "The Fab 3" when J had been riffing on "The Fab 4". J jumps in his seat a bit, then realizes it's okay now to say that and calms down. (In "The Winged Beatle" the clip is shown, though for effect (and thus makes a literal untruth in the edit, unfortunately) the maker of the movie edits in J winking, which is from later in scene. See TWB (link above) at 45:00.
5. J drew an extremely macabre drawing in late 1971, when PID story was already out, but gave it to someone who wouldn't be in a position to make a bigger PID ruckus; thus = a privately public PID clue. It does not prove Paul died, but it is a PID-style clue. (Its poignancy also, however, would on its own indicate something serious might be real about PID clues overall.) Yet of course, a PID case is made on facial and earlobe forensics, not clues. For info on the drawing, plus PID forensics info links themselves you have this very page (right here!).
Imagery detail analysis continued ...
So it would seem that this drawing is of Paul McCartney, dead, just as was suspected in the Paul is Dead rumour and is now confirmed by careful modern forensics analysis of different kinds, formal (as already linked) and informal (here and here), as were also linked to, above.


............................................................................PART 4
Whether Paul died or didn't ...3. Finally, third, what is the specific history of this drawing, in more detail? Does it, too, help indicate that this could be a PID-theme drawing, whether Paul is dead or not?

John Lennon made this drawing and signed the front of the album it's drawn on, in December 7, 1971. In the past few months (January 7 2013) and the last few days (March 8 2013), two items came out about the unknown young collector and Beatles fan named Morrell, for whom John drew this drawing. The article is in two parts (one and two), and the March item is on Youtube with audio from January 1972.  Morrell was a young man who gave John Lennon his first hearing of "Yellow Matter Custard" (a bootleg LP), and got a lucky and valuable trade for it. Morrell asked for a copy of the valuable "Yesterday and Today" (so-called "Butcher") album, which depicted the Beatles with a strange set of baby doll heads and raw meat, quite grisly. It is a rare album cover already, and John signed and dated the front of it, plus, on the back of the album for Morrell, John drew this in haste, with no explanation we know of. (There is some possibility he drew it before, but this would have to be checked with Morrell.)
In the audio, Morrell talks with the DJ who introduced him to John, and both of them glow over the fact John signed the album. They mention the drawing, but are confounded about the image John drew. Neither mentions the grisliness of it. They do say it's "weird" and "very weird", and that's the extent of their mention of the death imagery. The DJ suggests it might be a "Fool on the Hill" (perhaps from an also-broken head image of the Fool from the "Magical Mystery Tour" album booklet, but more likely from the setting sun in this drawing, which is also in the song "The Fool on the Hill".) Either way, Morrell provides no thoughts and the DJ is stumped. They can't figure it out and they move on. There is also no mention of the grisliness of the image in interviews with the drawing's new owner, Paneka, either (owner from the mid-1980s forward).
The title of the bootleg Morrell gave to John, "Yellow Matter Custard" refers to a dog's death in the supposedly "Paul is Dead" clues-filled song "I am the Walrus" from 1967, the year after Paul died, according to the rumour and modern forensics. The album our image is drawn on, the "Butcher Album" (properly speaking, "Yesterday and Today") had also, of course, another death image on the front, though from before Paul is supposed to have died).
In spite of these overlapping references to death and the outright medical quality of the death head in our image,  where the most salient aspect of this image is NOT its symbols, but the grisliness of it, nobody has commented thus far.
Now, whoever is dead in this atypical drawing, we can note that PID had already come out as a concept in popular culture by the time of the 1972 interview. Was John just continuing a public myth in this private drawing? The outright medical information in the depiction of the head would suggest not. It would seem likely that the idea that PID was out there in the public, though decried by others as a "hoax" idea, freed John up just enough to do the drawing on the grisly album, though still in semi-private, for a young and unknown fan who didn't realize what he was seeing, even the extent of the grisliness. ... Was John's freedom to "speak" directly freed up here? Seems so.

My best wishes to those who cannot see what's happening here, even so.
Another full-size, best resolution copy of drawing follows, then Section 3, which is drawing's history. Finally: Bibliography with full links to much of what was embedded info and links above. Then comments section.

RIP John and Paul and George -- and Mal Evans, Brian Epstein, Neil Aspinall, etc. And best wishes to all others still alive who have covered this up , too, to this day. Thank you for the releases of information, such as they have been, though spotty.
But personally: thank you, John.



My own broadcasts on the PID subject in general: . (Right-click green name at top to save and listen) This is a formal and fairly complete overview of the PID case, the circumstances of the 1960s psychological operations going on in music and elsewhere, with many references given. However, it is also very, very careful to mention (as I have done in this article, too, overall, I hope) what the other side claims, plus (moreso than in this article) what some PID claims fail to recognize is not absolute on their side as well, or even outright provably wrong (such as that all the Beatles also were replaced, since FULL FRONTAL photos can be shown to share bony structures with the early Beatle photos, but not in Paul's case). Impressions from 3/4 views, snapshots, age weight loss and gain are NOT proper comparisons. . I am pretty sure I am the only one to note John's verbal clue mentioned in the Beatles breakup interview, but also, if this image from the Morrell Butcher Album is known to PIDers, other mentions by John which seem positive to PID are certainly not well promoted enough, so I mentioned his seeming positive reference to PID here, but it's discussed in the donaldfox.wordpress interview as well. There are other things also discussed in this interview.
My interview on John Lennon's assassination (with "Total Information" as co-interviewee) is here: . (Right-click green name at top to save and listen) In this interview, all but 1 major line of inquiry and set of evidence about what is known or not known about the assassination are given. It is the most complete (though quick) overview that I know of, of the main findings and problems with what's not known. My hour is 1st; "Total"'s hour is 2nd.

About the drawing:
The DJ who had introduced John Lennon to the young man, Morrell, discuss the wonderful gift John gave, in that audio clip from Jan. 23, 1972, during a Beatles info/music marathon on WPLJ FM, now on Youtube: It was posted by "spinalcrackerbox" on Mar 8, 2013. DJ Howard Smith is talking to the then-21 year old and then-obscure fan he introduced John to, Dave Morrell, for whom John did the drawing. They're discussing mostly other things than the drawing but briefly find the drawing really weird (disturbing, from their tone). John is not known for macabre drawings, but they don't mention the gore at all.
The DJ suggests it might be "Fool on the Hill" -- as mentioned above. It is probably based on the digging and at least subconsciously he might be remembering the SUSPECTED clue on Magical Mystery Tour booklet of fool with "possible" head crack open, and left hand like dead person underground, or warped hand, in cartoon, as I put above. Here is the link:
The new clue is even more a macabre image than the general PID "clues" or "jokes", if that's what they are. The DJ says he's guessing about the Fool on the Hill, butdoesn't give a reason for thinking it's "Fool". A friend of mine suggests murder for the image, while another has the same idea but thinks it's just anger from John about Paul's turning into a "turnip head" farmer and is slashed with a rutabega or something. We have shown the general info which suggests that we can't know if Paul was murdered. The dark shape is not likely coming INTO the figure's head but coming OUT, because of the general damage left-right as well.
For more on the way the drawing came to be done on the album, see 2-part article: and . The high-resolution, full-sized image of this drawing is cached for part 1 of the article, specifically at . The article is written by Paul Garfunkel with Bruce  Spizer, Jan. 17, 2013 for both parts.
Steve Paneka owns the album now and is the collector with the best collection of Beatles material overall according to many in that field. An article about him is here: . This is where the photo is (posted in my article, above), the one of Paneka making a definite "3" with his fingers, so definite that it is awkward, so is deliberately made. What could this reasonably mean but "3 Beatles", EVEN IF HE'S WRONG? Also, Paul was the 3rd Beatle to join the band. Sir Paul, if he's a different person, is the 5th. Does Paneka think he sees obvious changes in Paul? Seems so.
The photo comparison of Mal Evans with Paul and (putatively) Sir Paul, respectively, is from this blog page: and cached specifically at . Note the blog this is from is not perfect. Some pages (such as this one) are excellent, others are interesting, others may be wrong.
The earlobe photo comparison is from this blog page: . It is cached specifically here: . Note the blog this is from is not perfect. Some pages (such as this one) are excellent, others are interesting, others may be wrong.
Photos can be used forensically. The two forensic scientists who were interviewed by WIRED Italia, July 15, 2009, but whose interview was never formally translated into English, speak openly about their work, how it was done, what they believe is absolute about their method. Is their method absolute? Do they have good enough source material to work with? Well, you can, I hope, work through it patiently enough in this machine Web translation to find out. You CAN see that they have eliminated regular photo distortion, because features of the two men, in full frontal pictures, go up, down, in, out, when corrected (sized) for inner eyes and pupils, with appropriate leeway allowed. In this way, peer review is not necessary for assessing whether the work is good, at least IN KEY WAYS. Some logic transcends expertise, or when explained, does. A copy of the article and most of it in translation (not all captions) is here: . Note the blog this is from is not perfect. Some pages (such as this one) are excellent, others are interesting, others may be wrong.
Note: weeks after the formal forensic study came out, Sir Paul was interviewed by David Letterman on Aug. 13, 2009 and was asked (a rare thing) and answered (even rarer these days) about PID. Though Sir Paul used to answer PID questions from time to time, it is rare in recent years. However, on Letterman, close to when the Wired magazine came out in Italy, Sir Paul actually discusses PID. This topic (along with all topics for the famous Sir Paul) most likely was okayed ahead of time. And the timing of allowing or requesting or AT LEAST his willingness to answer anything about it instead of purely laughing it off, may well indicate his attempt to steal any thunder which may have come from the publication of the article. This could be true, whether Paul died or not. Of course we can't formally be sure of this hypothesis either way, but we can have general surety that stealing some "nonsensical" or "real" attention away from the Wired claims was why the interview with those questions was done at that time. But in addition: Sir Paul slips up in implying -- even as a slip of the tongue, let's say -- that he is the replacement, with an ambiguous turn of phrase. What clinches the likelihood of a real slip-up is his quick and very furtive body language, right after saying it. The Letterman-Sir McCartney interview is here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 . The PID question segment is in Part 2.  .................................................COMMENTS SECTION:



  1. Clare, I cannot believe no one else has commented on this wonderful page! I can say I want the truth about Paul McCartney. The question is whether I can follow facts that run up against any bias I might have. I tend to be suspicious of official theories (small wonder!). Also, lies get incorporated into history and many mistake history for truth. What will you say about this matter this September 11?

    1. Hi, Dean. Here is a 48-year RIP note for Sept 11 1966. He is dead twice the years of his lifespan. Sad, though I am glad of the replacement (not the likely murder and likely spookery after). My new radio broadcast (right-click to save & listen) from Sept 8: & for more background the other shows & Lennon drawing & info are listed at: - A few pictures here: -- My blog, as you know, is right here: -- xo & bless you.

  2. You deserve a Ph.D

    1. Thanks ... several, at this point, actually ... but this case has required the most writing of them all, personally.

      I didn't want to do scholarship, though capable & already somewhat engaged in it. I left university to do other things and ended up being so peeved & intrigued with how to know (epistemology) and cover-ups, that I landed here.


      Now that you've read it, you can have one too: an honourary degree (you didn't write it), but it's given by the Free University of anti-dumbed-down historiography, criminology, political science, brain science (specialization: perception error), propaganda, media studies, and since some have degrees in music which allow for specialization in Beatles, while some have a degree in Beatles exactly, you have a degree in that, too.



    2. Oh, and philosophy of science (meaning, of the physical world and how to determine truths about it).


  3. Watch the video of 'Free as a bird' backwards, you can find it on YouTube, you then get the four Beatles walking past the camera and then Three Beatles crossing the road! And after this what looks like Paul inside the gates of Strawberry Field. I came across it by accident going backwards and saw lots of clues in there only to realise it wasn't supposed to be played that way which would fit in with the backwards theme the Beatles often used, only this time the full video not the audio! Great article by the way, have been reading it for days!

    1. Thanks. Yes, there are plenty of reasonable clue identifications out there. (& a few bad ones).